KSLU Solved Question Papers
Right to Information
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2013 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Right to Information 2013 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
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 2013 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Dec 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.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Explain the right to information under the Indian Constitution.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: no article names the right in words; it is read into Article 19(1)(a), with Articles 14 and 21; the limits in Article 19(2); the line of cases from Raj Narain (1975) to the Electoral Bonds case (2024); the constitutional provisions that keep some things secret (Articles 74(2), 163(3), 22(6), 105 and 194); privacy under Article 21 as the other side; the remedies under Articles 32 and 226; why Parliament still had to pass the RTI Act 2005.
The right is not written in the Constitution, but it is there
The Constitution of India has no article titled "right to information". The words do not appear anywhere in Part III. Even so, the right to information is a fundamental right in India.
The Supreme Court has read it into Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees to all citizens "freedom of speech and expression". The reasoning is simple. A person cannot form an opinion, or express one, about matters he is not allowed to know. So the freedom to speak includes the freedom to know, to receive and to pass on information.
The right also draws support from two other articles.
- Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, has been read widely since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. Information about health, environment and the action of the State affects life itself.
- Article 14, the guarantee of equality, strikes at arbitrary action. In Maneka Gandhi the Government refused to give a citizen the reasons for impounding her passport. The Court held that arbitrariness and equality are "sworn enemies". Secrecy that hides arbitrary action cannot stand with Article 14.
How the Supreme Court built the right, case by case
1. State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 (decided 24 January 1975).
Facts. In his election petition against the Prime Minister, Raj Narain wanted the "Blue Book" produced. It contained the rules for protecting the Prime Minister on tour. The State claimed privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act.
Held. The majority set aside the High Court's order and sent the privilege claim back for a fresh decision. In his concurring judgment Mathew J said that in a government of responsibility "there can but few secrets". "The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries." He added that this right to know "is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute".
Why it matters. This is the first clear statement that the right to know is part of Article 19(1)(a).
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (the Judges' Transfer case, 30 December 1981).
Facts. The Government claimed that its letters with the Chief Justices about not continuing an additional Judge were secret as a class.
Held. Bhagwati J said the concept of an open government is "the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)". Disclosure "must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands". The letters were ordered to be disclosed.
Why it matters. It turned the right to know into a rule of interpretation: secrecy must be justified, not assumed.
3. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236. The Court held that "the right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of freedom of speech and expression". It also held that the airwaves are public property to be used for the public good.
4. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112 (2 May 2002).
Facts. The question was whether voters may know about the candidates they vote for.
Held. A voter's right to know the antecedents of candidates is part of Article 19(1)(a). The Court directed the Election Commission to call for affidavits on criminal cases, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications.
5. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363. Parliament then added section 33B to the Representation of the People Act, limiting disclosure to what the Act required. The Court struck section 33B down. It said the right to information "cannot be frozen and stagnated".
6. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113 (the Electoral Bonds case, 15 February 2024). A Constitution Bench held that the anonymous Electoral Bond Scheme violated the voter's right to information about political funding under Article 19(1)(a). The Court directed the State Bank of India to give the details of the bonds to the Election Commission for publication.
The limits: the right is not absolute
The right to information is a part of Article 19(1)(a). So it is subject to the same limits as speech. Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions by law in the interests of:
- the sovereignty and integrity of India;
- the security of the State;
- friendly relations with foreign States;
- public order;
- decency or morality;
- contempt of court;
- defamation;
- incitement to an offence.
Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 20 March 1997) shows the limit at work. Members of Parliament wanted the Vohra Committee report on the nexus between criminals and politicians, with all its supporting papers. The Court said citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government, but "like all other rights, even this right has recognised limitations". The report, once tabled in Parliament, was a public document. Its supporting material did not have to be published.
Provisions of the Constitution that protect confidentiality
Some articles of the Constitution itself keep certain matters away from public or judicial view. A full answer names them.
| Article | What it keeps confidential |
|---|---|
| 74(2) | Whether any, and if so what, advice Ministers gave the President "shall not be inquired into in any court" |
| 163(3) | The same protection for advice given by Ministers to a Governor |
| 22(6) | A preventive detention authority need not disclose facts it considers against the public interest to disclose |
| Article | What it keeps confidential |
|---|---|
| 105 and 194 | Privileges of Parliament and the State Legislatures, which can restrict publication of their proceedings |
| 75(4) and 164(3) with the Third Schedule | Ministers take an oath of secrecy |
These provisions do not cancel the right to know. They mark out narrow areas where the Constitution itself prefers confidentiality. Section 8(1)(c) and (i) of the RTI Act follow the same lines for legislative privilege and Cabinet papers.
Privacy: the right on the other side of the scale
The Constitution also protects privacy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, nine Judges held that the right to privacy is protected under Article 21 and as part of the freedoms in Part III. So two fundamental rights can meet in one request. A citizen's right to know may collide with another person's right to privacy.
Parliament has now drawn that line by statute. Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 substituted section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with effect from 13 November 2025. The clause now exempts simply "information which relates to personal information". The general public interest override in section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains.
Remedies under the Constitution
A person denied information in breach of Article 19(1)(a) can move the Supreme Court under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226. But a writ petition is costly and slow. No citizen can use it every time he wants a single file.
Why a statute was still needed
The constitutional right was real but hard to use. It had no officer to receive a request, no time limit, no fee and no penalty. The Right to Information Act 2005 gave it machinery. Its preamble says it sets out "the practical regime of right to information for citizens". Section 3 declares that, subject to the Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.
Worked example
A citizen wants to see the tender file for a bridge built by the State.
- Under the Constitution alone, he would have to file a writ under Article 226 and prove a breach of Article 19(1)(a).
- Under the RTI Act, he applies to the Public Information Officer with a small fee. He must get a reply within thirty days. If refused, he can appeal.
The right is the same in both cases. Only the route is easier.
Conclusion. The Constitution does not name the right to information. The Supreme Court has made it a part of Article 19(1)(a), supported by Articles 14 and 21. From Raj Narain in 1975 to the Electoral Bonds case in 2024, the Court has treated disclosure as the rule and secrecy as the exception. The right is limited by Article 19(2) and by the confidentiality in Articles 74(2), 163(3) and 22(6). It must also be balanced against the right to privacy under Article 21. The RTI Act 2005 did not create this right. It gave a constitutional right a simple, enforceable procedure.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 8 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.