B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Right to Information 2011 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: the claim and its two halves; Part A, how secrecy harms a democracy: it hides corruption (MKSS muster rolls; section 24 proviso), distorts elections (the Electoral Bonds case, 2024), shields arbitrary decisions (S.P. Gupta), lets wrongdoing escape investigation (Ram Jethmalani, 2011), and breeds distrust; Part B, how transparency makes it thrive: informed voters (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms; Lok Prahari), answerable regulators (Jayantilal N. Mistry), and open institutions (Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019); Part C, the secrecy a democracy itself needs: the secret ballot, deliberation before decision (section 8(1)(i) and proviso), security (section 8(1)(a)), privacy (Puttaswamy; Ram Jethmalani para 77); the test that reconciles them: secrecy must be justified, openness need not be (sections 8(2), 19(5); Raj Narain); assessment; conclusion.

2. It distorts elections. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113, the Electoral Bond Scheme allowed anonymous funding of political parties. Voters could not learn who had funded whom. Five Judges struck the scheme down. They held that the voter's right to information about political funding is part of Article 19(1)(a). The unlimited corporate donations it allowed were arbitrary under Article 14. Secrecy about who funds parties prevents voters from knowing whose interests their representatives may serve.

3. It shields arbitrary decisions. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, the Government claimed immunity for its correspondence on a Judge's non-continuation. Bhagwati J held that disclosure must be the rule and secrecy the exception, justified only by the strictest public interest. A decision that can never be examined cannot be corrected.

2. Regulators answer to the public. In Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, the RBI was made to disclose its inspection reports on banks. The Court held that the RBI must uphold the public interest, not the interest of the banks it supervises.

3. No institution stands above scrutiny. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (13 November 2019), five Judges held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is within the Act. The fact of judges' asset declarations was ordered to be disclosed.

4. Citizens take part. Section 4(1)(c) requires authorities to publish all relevant facts while forming important policies. Section 4(1)(d) requires them to give reasons for decisions to affected persons. Participation becomes possible only when the facts are known.

Part C: the secrecy a democracy itself needs

The statement goes too far if read literally. Some secrecy serves democracy.

1. The secret ballot. Voters must be free from pressure, so how each person votes is kept secret. This secrecy protects the citizen, not the State.

1. A PIO who refuses must show which exemption applies, and in an appeal the burden of proving the refusal justified is on him (section 19(5)).
2. Even exempt information may be disclosed where the public interest outweighs the harm (section 8(2)).
3. The label "secret" settles nothing. In State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, Mathew J said that in a responsible government "there can but few secrets". He added that the executive's label on a document is not conclusive.

A worked example

A State Cabinet decides to allot public land to a private trust at a nominal price.

1. While the proposal is under discussion, the Cabinet notes are exempt under section 8(1)(i), so ministers can debate freely.
2. Once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, the proviso applies. The decision, the reasons and the material relied on must then be made public.
3. A citizen who asks for the file can therefore see why the land was given and on what valuation.
4. If the PIO refuses, he must prove before the Commission that an exemption still applies (section 19(5)).

Conclusion. Democracy thrives in transparency because secrecy hides corruption, distorts elections (the Electoral Bonds case) and shields arbitrary decisions (S.P. Gupta). It also lets wrongdoing escape investigation (Ram Jethmalani). Transparency gives voters knowledge (Association for Democratic Reforms, Lok Prahari) and makes regulators and even the highest offices answerable (Jayantilal N. Mistry, Subhash Chandra Agarwal). Yet democracy needs some secrets of its own: the ballot, deliberation until decision, security and privacy (Puttaswamy). The RTI Act reconciles the two by making openness the rule and requiring every secret to be justified (sections 8(2), 19(5); Raj Narain).