KSLU Solved Question Papers
Right to Information
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8
2014 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Right to Information 2014 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 2014 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2014 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2014 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 · 13 questions answered
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.
Q1Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning. Discuss.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the source of the statement (the second recital of the RTI Act's Preamble) and its place among the four recitals; a phrase-by-phrase reading: "informed citizenry" (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms), "transparency of information", "vital to its functioning" (Dinesh Trivedi; Bhagat Singh on participatory democracy), "to contain corruption" (Mohan K. Patil), "accountable to the governed" (section 4(1)(d), section 20); the third recital's counter-weights: efficient operations, fiscal resources, confidentiality (Aditya Bandopadhyay; Subhash Chandra Agarwal); the fourth recital's rule: harmonise while keeping the democratic ideal paramount (sections 8(2), 10, 11); whether practice matches the Preamble (Anjali Bhardwaj; the 2025 change); how the courts use the Preamble; a table; conclusion.
The source
The statement is taken from the second recital of the Preamble to the Right to Information Act 2005. In full it reads: "democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed". It is one of four recitals. The first notes that India is a democratic Republic. The third admits that disclosure may conflict with other public interests. The fourth asks for those interests to be harmonised "while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal". The statement can only be discussed properly in that setting.
Reading the statement phrase by phrase
1. "An informed citizenry". In a democracy the citizen is the final judge of government. He judges at elections and in public debate. He can do neither well without knowledge. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, the Supreme Court held that voters have a right under Article 19(1)(a) to know the criminal antecedents, assets and education of candidates. It directed affidavits with every nomination. An informed citizenry begins with an informed voter. It continues between elections, when citizens follow, question and influence what their representatives do.
2. "Transparency of information". Informing citizens is not enough if government itself stays closed. Transparency means that the workings of government are visible as a matter of course. The Act serves this through proactive disclosure of seventeen categories of information (section 4(1)(b)). It also requires publication of facts behind important policies (section 4(1)(c)) and gives a right to inspect records (section 2(j)).
3. "Vital to its functioning". The Preamble calls these "vital", not merely useful. In Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (20 March 1997), members of Parliament sought the Vohra Committee report on the nexus between criminals, politicians and bureaucrats. The Supreme Court said that "in modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government". In Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 146 (2008) DLT 385, the Delhi High Court said that information, more than any other element, is of critical importance to participatory democracy. It added that the Act seeks, as its preambular paragraphs show, to promote transparency, arrest corruption and hold government accountable.
4. "To contain corruption". Secrecy is where corruption grows. In Mohan K. Patil v. Reserve Bank of India (CIC/SG/A/2011/002069/16018, 29 November 2011), the RBI refused its inspection report on a co-operative bank. The Central Information Commission held that information given to the RBI under statutory duty creates no fiduciary relationship. It said citizens have a right to know of irregularities, and ordered disclosure. Exposure of irregularity is the first step in containing it. The Act also keeps allegations of corruption open even in excluded security agencies (section 24).
5. "To hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed". Accountability means that those who govern must explain themselves to those they govern. Section 4(1)(d) requires reasons for decisions affecting people. Section 20 makes officers personally liable for withholding information without cause. The words "their instrumentalities" show that accountability reaches beyond Ministries to corporations, boards and other bodies the Government controls or finances (section 2(h)).
The counter-weights in the third recital
The Preamble does not pretend that openness costs nothing. The third recital accepts that disclosure "is likely to conflict with other public interests". It names three:
- Efficient operations of Governments. In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, the Supreme Court gave students access to their evaluated answer books. But it warned that "indiscriminate and impractical demands" could clog administration and harm efficiency.
- Optimum use of limited fiscal resources. Section 7(9) allows information to be given in another form where the form asked for would "disproportionately divert the resources" of the authority.
- Confidentiality of sensitive information. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (13 November 2019), a Constitution Bench held that the right to information and privacy must be balanced, with neither having automatic priority. The fact of judges' asset declarations was disclosed, while the contents went through the third party procedure.
The rule of the fourth recital
The fourth recital tells the reader how to resolve the conflict. The interests must be "harmonised", but "the paramountcy of the democratic ideal" must be preserved. The Act builds this into its structure:
- exemptions are listed narrowly in section 8(1), not left to discretion;
- the public interest may override any exemption (section 8(2));
- the non-exempt part of a record must be given (section 10);
- third parties are heard, but may be overridden in the public interest (section 11(1) proviso).
Does practice match the Preamble?
The Preamble states an ideal. Practice shows both progress and gaps.
- Progress. Citizens now routinely obtain files, notings, accounts and reasons that were once closed. Voters receive candidates' affidavits. Regulators, courts' administrations and local bodies answer RTI requests.
- Slow enforcement. In Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (15 February 2019), many posts in the Information Commissions lay vacant and appeals waited for years. The Supreme Court directed timely, transparent appointments. Information that arrives years late does little for an informed citizenry.
- Patchy proactive disclosure. Many authorities still publish little under section 4, so citizens must file requests for what should already be public.
- A wider privacy exemption. Since 13 November 2025, section 8(1)(j) exempts "information which relates to personal information". Critics fear it will be used to shield officials, which would weaken accountability to the governed.
The Preamble therefore remains a standard against which practice is measured, not a description of what has been achieved.
How the courts use the Preamble
Courts and Commissions read the Act's provisions in the light of its Preamble. In Bhagat Singh, the Delhi High Court relied on the preambular aims to hold that exemptions must be strictly construed. In Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Supreme Court relied on the same Preamble to stress the need for balance. The second recital thus pushes towards disclosure, and the third and fourth keep that push within limits.
| Phrase in the Preamble | What it requires | Provision or case |
|---|---|---|
| Informed citizenry | Citizens, especially voters, must know | Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms |
| Transparency of information | Government visible as a matter of course | Sections 2(j), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c) |
| Vital to its functioning | Not optional but essential | Dinesh Trivedi; Bhagat Singh |
| Contain corruption | Expose irregularity | Mohan K. Patil; section 24 |
| Accountable to the governed | Reasons and responsibility | Sections 4(1)(d), 20 |
| Conflicting interests | Efficiency, resources, confidentiality | Aditya Bandopadhyay; section 7(9); Subhash Chandra Agarwal |
| Paramountcy of democratic ideal | Narrow exemptions, override, severance | Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10, 11 |
Conclusion. The statement, from the second recital of the RTI Act's Preamble, holds that democracy cannot function without informed citizens and open government. It treats them as the means to contain corruption and to make Governments and their instrumentalities answer to the governed. The courts have given it force. Association for Democratic Reforms informs voters, Dinesh Trivedi calls the right to know axiomatic, and Bhagat Singh links information to participatory democracy. Mohan K. Patil shows openness exposing irregularity. The Preamble also recognises efficiency, scarce resources and confidentiality, as Aditya Bandopadhyay and Subhash Chandra Agarwal show. It resolves the tension by harmonising these interests through narrow exemptions, a public interest override and severance, while keeping the democratic ideal paramount.
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.