Are these the official KSLU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. They are not answer keys issued by Karnataka State Law University. Use them to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 8 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays free.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Why is the reading passage not printed in full?

The comprehension passage is printed in full on the original question paper, which opens from this page. Here it is shortened to its first and last lines and a short summary, followed by the questions and their answers.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Right to Information 2012 Jun Question Paper with Solutions - KSLU

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Right to Information

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8

2012 Jun Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.

Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.

Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.

Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.

munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.

The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.

The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2012 Jun examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2012 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.

Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered

Instructions printed on the paper

N.B. (1) Answer all 5 questions. (2) Figures to the right indicate marks. (3) Answers should be written either in English or Kannada completely.

How to use this volume

Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Read the original question paper

Q1

Unit I

(a)Sun light is the best disinfectant. RTI is the best for openness and accountability. Discuss with the help of case laws.[15]

Answer

For full marks, cover: the two claims (publicity cures misuse of power; the RTI Act is the best instrument for it); what openness and accountability mean; why the RTI Act outperforms courts, Parliament, audit and the press as a tool for citizens (a comparison table); the provisions that produce openness (sections 4, 8(2), 8(3), 10, 22, 24 proviso) and accountability (sections 4(1)(d), 19(5), 19(8)(b), 20); the case law, area by area: regulators (Jayantilal N. Mistry), public money (Chander Shekhar, Kuldeep Singh Yadav), examinations (Aditya Bandopadhyay, Shaunak H. Satya), the highest offices (Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019), officials made to pay (Saroj Singh); where the light stops (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, Angesh Kumar, Thalappalam); assessment; conclusion.

The two claims

The statement joins two ideas. The first is Louis Brandeis's: publicity cures the misuse of power as sunlight kills germs. The second is a claim about India: of all the means available, the RTI Act is the best for securing openness and accountability. The second claim needs proof, and the case law supplies it.

Openness and accountability

Openness means that citizens can see what the Government holds and does. Accountability means that officials must explain their decisions and suffer consequences when they fail. Openness without accountability produces facts that nobody acts on. Accountability without openness is impossible, because nobody knows what to question.

Why the RTI Act is the best tool for citizens

Other institutions also hold Government to account. Each has a limit that the RTI Act does not.

Means	Who can use it	Its limit	The RTI Act
Courts	Parties to a case	Slow, costly, documents only as evidence	Any citizen, ten rupees, thirty days
Parliament and legislatures	Members	Questions only by legislators, answers controlled by Ministers	Any citizen asks directly
Audit	The Comptroller and Auditor General	After the event, selective	Any record, at any time
The press	Journalists	No power to compel production	A legal duty to supply, enforced by a Commission

The Act makes every citizen an auditor of the State. It is cheap, fixed in time, and backed by an independent Commission with power to penalise.

The provisions that produce openness

Proactive disclosure. Section 4 requires authorities to publish their functions, rules, budgets, beneficiaries and decision processes without being asked.

Secrecy laws overridden. Section 22 gives the Act effect notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act and any other law.
Public interest override. Section 8(2) allows exempt information to be disclosed where the public interest outweighs the harm.
Time ends most secrecy. Information about events twenty years old must be given, save under clauses (a), (c) and (i) (section 8(3)).
Severance. Only the exempt part of a record is withheld; the rest is given (section 10).
Corruption never excluded. Even intelligence and security organisations must disclose allegations of corruption and human rights violations (proviso to section 24(1)).

The provisions that produce accountability

Reasons. Authorities must give affected persons the reasons for their decisions (section 4(1)(d)).
Burden on the officer. In an appeal, the PIO must prove that a refusal was justified (section 19(5)).

Compensation. The authority can be made to compensate the citizen for loss (section 19(8)(b)).
Personal penalty. The PIO pays up to Rs 25,000 from his own pocket for unjustified default (section 20).

The case law: the light at work

1. Regulators. In Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, the RBI refused to disclose its inspection reports on banks, claiming a fiduciary relationship. The Supreme Court rejected the claim. The RBI must "uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks". Depositors could now see what the regulator had found.

2. Public money. In Chander Shekhar v. BSNL (CIC/AD/A/2009/001366, 10 November 2009), BSNL refused the bid values in a tender, relying on a non-disclosure agreement. The Commission held that once bids are opened and evaluated, the information is public. A tender involving about Rs 40,000 crore of public money cannot be kept secret. In Kuldeep Singh Yadav v. Irrigation and Flood Control Department (CIC/SG/A/2009/001385/4113, 14 July 2009), an applicant sought the works, budgets and contractors in his constituency. The department was directed to give details of a road identified at the hearing, or admit that it had not built it. Few questions demand accountability more directly.

3. Examinations. In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, students won the right to inspect their evaluated answer books, with examiners' names masked. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya, AIR 2011 SC 3336, an examinee sought the Institute's instructions to examiners and moderation criteria. The Court held that "additional workload is not a defence", and the standard moderation criteria had to be disclosed. Examining bodies became answerable for how they mark.

4. The highest offices. 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 part of a public authority. The fact of judges' asset declarations was ordered to be disclosed. No office is beyond the Act's reach.

5. Officials made to pay. In Saroj Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi (CIC/SG/A/2011/001436/13689, 19 August 2011), revenue officials ignored even a first appellate order to supply village land records. The Commission held each defaulting officer separately liable. One paid Rs 6,500 and another the maximum Rs 25,000, from salary. Accountability became personal.

Where the light stops

The Act is a strong light, but not an unlimited one.

Personal information. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212, an officer's service record and income tax details were held to be personal information. Since 13 November 2025, section 8(1)(j) exempts all "information which relates to personal information", subject only to section 8(2).

Safety of examiners. In Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (13 December 2012), disclosing the names of interview board members was held to "ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety". It was exempt under section 8(1)(g).
Administrative burden. In Union Public Service Commission v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530, the Court refused to order raw marks of the Civil Services preliminary examination to be disclosed "mechanically". It weighed transparency against efficient use of resources and confidentiality.
Private bodies. In Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82, co-operative societies without deep Government control or substantial funding were held outside the Act.

Assessment

The claim is largely true. No other mechanism gives every citizen a cheap, enforceable, time-bound right to see Government records. The cases show the Act exposing regulators, tenders, public works, examinations and even the highest court. But the Act works only as well as its Commissions and records do. The Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (15 February 2019) had to direct Governments to fill Commission vacancies in time. The Act is the best tool for openness and accountability, but it complements the courts, audit and the press rather than replacing them.

Conclusion. Publicity is the best disinfectant, and the RTI Act is India's most effective means of applying it. It opens records through sections 4, 8(2), 8(3), 10, 22 and 24. It enforces accountability through reasons, the burden on the PIO, compensation and personal penalties. The cases prove it: Jayantilal N. Mistry, Chander Shekhar, Kuldeep Singh Yadav, Aditya Bandopadhyay, Shaunak H. Satya, Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Saroj Singh. Its light stops at privacy, safety, real administrative burden and private bodies (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, Angesh Kumar, Thalappalam).

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Right to Information 2012 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

Contents