munotes®
Sign in
Home / KSLU Solved Papers / B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) / Sem 8 / Right to Information / 2019 Dec / Solutions

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Right to Information 2019 Dec Question Paper with Solutions

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Right to Information

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 8

2019 Dec Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

munotes.in

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 2019 Dec examination.

munotes.in ii

Contents

The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2019 Dec examination, in the order it was set.

MarksPage

munotes.in iii

MarksPage

munotes.in iv

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2019 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.

Read the original question paper

munotes.in v

Q1Discuss the Historical Development of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in India.[16]

Answer

For full marks, cover: the three roots of the Act: constitutional (Raj Narain, S.P. Gupta), popular (MKSS, NCPRI) and legislative (drafts, State laws, the Freedom of Information Act 2002); the making of the 2005 Act: the National Advisory Council, the Bill of 23 December 2004, the Standing Committee, passage on 11 and 12 May 2005, assent on 15 June 2005, full commencement on 12 October 2005; what the Act changed; its development since 2005 through the courts (Aditya Bandopadhyay, Namit Sharma, Thalappalam, Jayantilal N. Mistry, Subhash Chandra Agarwal), rules and practice (RTI Rules 2012, RTI Online 2013) and amendments (2019, and section 8(1)(j) in 2025); an assessment.

Introduction

The Right to Information Act 2005 did not appear suddenly. It grew from three roots: what the courts said the Constitution required, what ordinary people demanded, and what Parliament and the States tried before 2005. After its enactment, it has continued to develop through judgments, rules and two significant amendments. A full account covers both the making of the Act and its life since.

munotes.in 1

Root 1: the constitutional root

The courts read the right to know into the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a).

  1. In State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, Mathew J said that the people "have a right to know every public act" of their public functionaries.
  2. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, Bhagwati J held that disclosure "must be the rule and secrecy an exception".
  3. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112, a voter's right to know candidates' backgrounds was recognised.

These cases gave the Act its constitutional base. They also showed the limit of judicial remedies: each citizen still had to go to court for each file. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons calls the Act a framework for "effectuating the right of information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India".

munotes.in 2

Root 2: the popular root

In Rajasthan the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, formally set up in 1990, fought for workers' wages by demanding muster rolls. Its public hearings showed that records expose corruption. The Beawar meeting of 1995 and the forty-day dharna of 1996 led to the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, formed in 1996. The campaign kept pressing for a strong national law. It wanted citizens to have a real remedy when officials refused, not merely a statement of the right.

Root 3: the legislative root

  1. Drafts came from the Consumer Education and Research Council (1993), the Press Council of India (1996) and the Shourie Working Group (1997).
  2. States legislated first: Tamil Nadu and Goa in 1997, Rajasthan and Karnataka in 2000, Delhi in 2001, Maharashtra in 2002, and others.
  3. Parliament passed the Freedom of Information Act 2002, which received assent on 6 January 2003. It had no penalty and no independent appeal, and it was never brought into force.

The making of the 2005 Act

munotes.in 3
  1. The National Advisory Council. In 2004 the Council suggested changes to make the 2002 law effective. The Government accepted many of them. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, dated 18 December 2004, lists the main ones. They are an appellate machinery with investigating powers, penal provisions, "maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions", and better proactive disclosure.
  2. The Bill. The Right to Information Bill 2004 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 December 2004.
  3. The Standing Committee. The Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. It recommended wider coverage, including the States, which the Act as passed adopted.
  4. Passage. The Lok Sabha passed it on 11 May 2005 and the Rajya Sabha on 12 May 2005.
  5. Assent. The President assented on 15 June 2005. It became Act 22 of 2005.
  6. Commencement. Under section 1(3), sections 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 12, 13, 15, 16, 24, 27 and 28 came into force at once. The rest came into force on the 120th day, 12 October 2005.
  7. Repeal. Section 31 repealed the Freedom of Information Act 2002.

What the 2005 Act changed

munotes.in 4
Earlier positionUnder the 2005 Act
"Freedom of information", never in forceA "right to information" for all citizens (section 3)
Final appeal to the GovernmentIndependent Central and State Information Commissions (sections 12, 15, 19)
No penaltyRs 250 a day up to Rs 25,000, payable by the officer (section 20)
Wide exemptions, including advice and Centre-State mattersA closed list in section 8(1) with a public interest override in section 8(2)
Old information open after twenty-five yearsTwenty years (section 8(3))
Official Secrets Act supremeAct overrides it (section 22)

Development since 2005: the courts

  1. Scope of information. In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, answer books were held to be information and not held in a fiduciary relationship. The Court also warned against "indiscriminate and impractical demands".
munotes.in 5
  1. The Commissions. In Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745, the Court required judicial members. On review, in Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359, it recalled that direction but required eminent members from all the listed fields.
  2. Public authorities. In Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82, co-operative societies were held not to be public authorities unless owned, controlled or substantially financed by the State.
  3. Regulators. In Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, the RBI's claim of a fiduciary relationship with banks was rejected.
  4. The judiciary. In Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (13 November 2019), five Judges held the office of the Chief Justice of India to be a public authority.
  5. Appointments. In Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (15 February 2019), the Court ordered timely and transparent appointment of Commissioners.

Development since 2005: rules and practice

  1. The Right to Information Rules 2012 (31 July 2012) fixed the Rs 10 fee, a 500-word guideline and the procedure for second appeals.
munotes.in 6
  1. The RTI Online portal was launched by the Department of Personnel and Training on 8 April 2013, and soon covered all central Ministries.

Development since 2005: amendments

  1. The RTI (Amendment) Act 2019, in force from 24 October 2019, allowed the Central Government to prescribe the term and salaries of all Commissioners. The 2019 Rules fixed the term at three years.
  2. Section 8(1)(j) was substituted by section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, with effect from 13 November 2025. It now exempts "information which relates to personal information". The old public interest test inside the clause has gone, though section 8(2) remains.

Assessment

The Act's history shows a steady widening of the right up to 2005 and through the courts afterwards. The two recent amendments move the other way: one reduces the security of Commissioners, the other narrows access to personal information. Whether the Act remains as strong as its makers intended depends on how the Commissions and courts now apply section 8(2).

munotes.in 7

The practical history matters too. In Anjali Bhardwaj the Supreme Court found many posts of Commissioners vacant and appeals waiting for long periods. In D.P. Gupta v. Public Works Department, GNCT Delhi (CIC/WB/A/2008/00611, 5 November 2008), poor land records delayed a simple answer for months. And the Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay worried that the Act could be misused to bury offices in requests. The Act's next stage of development lies in better records, timely appointments and fuller proactive disclosure under section 4.

Conclusion. The RTI Act 2005 grew from three roots. One was the courts' reading of Article 19(1)(a). Another was the people's movement led by the MKSS and the NCPRI. The third was the earlier drafts, the State laws and the failed Act of 2002. The Bill was introduced on 23 December 2004 and passed in May 2005. It received assent on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005. Since then the Supreme Court has shaped its scope, and the 2012 Rules and online filing have made it easier to use. The amendments of 2019 and 2025 have changed the Commissioners' tenure and the personal information exemption.

munotes.in 8

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.

Issue

Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.

Done!