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

For full marks, cover: where the objectives are found (the long title and the four recitals of the Preamble); the objectives one by one: a practical regime for citizens, access to information held by public authorities, transparency, accountability, an informed citizenry, containing corruption, harmonising conflicting interests, and independent Information Commissions; how the Act's provisions carry each objective out; the importance of the right in a democracy: informed voting (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, the Electoral Bonds case), accountable government (State of U.P. v. Raj Narain), participation and social audit, protection of the poor, a check on corruption, support for a free press; the limits the Preamble itself accepts (Aditya Bandopadhyay, Puttaswamy); an assessment (Anjali Bhardwaj); a summary table.

Where the objectives are found

The RTI Act 2005 states its objectives in two places. The long title says what the Act is for. The Preamble then gives four recitals explaining why Parliament made it. Read together, they show an Act built on the idea of democracy, but aware of the costs of openness.

5. An informed citizenry. The second recital says that "democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning". Citizens who know what the Government does can judge it, vote wisely and take part in public life.

6. Containing corruption. The same recital adds a second purpose: "to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed". The proviso to section 24 reflects it: allegations of corruption are never excluded, even in security agencies.

7. Harmonising conflicting interests. The third recital admits that disclosure may "conflict with other public interests". It names efficient operations of Government, "optimum use of limited fiscal resources" and "the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information". The fourth recital asks for these to be harmonised "while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal". The exemptions in sections 8 and 9, the public interest override in section 8(2) and severance under section 10 carry out this balance.

2. Funding of parties is open to scrutiny. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113, the Electoral Bond Scheme let donors fund political parties anonymously. A Constitution Bench struck it down. It held that information about political funding is essential to the voter's choice, and that anonymity violated Article 19(1)(a). The State Bank of India had to disclose the bonds bought and encashed. Democracy cannot work if the voter cannot see who pays the parties.

3. Government answers to the governed. In State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, the Government claimed privilege over the "Blue Book" of rules for the Prime Minister's security, in an election petition. Mathew J said that in a responsible government "there can but few secrets". The people have a right to know "every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries". The RTI Act turns that idea into an enforceable right.

4. Citizens take part, not just vote. Democracy is more than a vote every five years. Social audits and public hearings, pioneered in Rajasthan by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, let villagers check wage registers and bills against their own experience. The Act gives every citizen the means to take part in the same way.

1. Burden on administration. 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 against "indiscriminate and impractical demands" that could clog administration. It noted the fear that staff would spend most of their time collecting information instead of doing their work. This reflects the third recital.
2. Privacy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, nine judges held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. The right to information must therefore be balanced against privacy. Since 13 November 2025, section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information, subject to the public interest override in section 8(2).
3. Security. Section 8(1)(a) protects sovereignty, security and foreign relations.

How far the objectives have been met

The Act has made asking a normal civic habit, from villages to the highest offices. Yet three weaknesses limit it.

Conclusion. The RTI Act aims to give citizens a practical right of access to information held by public authorities. Through it, government becomes transparent and accountable, and corruption is contained. It harmonises this with efficiency, fiscal limits, confidentiality and privacy, and it creates independent Commissions to enforce it. In a democracy its importance is basic. Voters choose with knowledge, as the Association for Democratic Reforms cases show. Governments answer for every public act, as Mathew J said in Raj Narain. Citizens can take part in governance and claim their entitlements. The right is not absolute, but the Preamble insists that the democratic ideal remains paramount.