The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means andldquo;any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in forceandrdquo;. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: andldquo;Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create informationandrdquo;; and, andldquo;the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular dutiesandrdquo;.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: andldquo;It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.andrdquo;Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhas...

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.
Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.
On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”

Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?

a)
No, because the court does not have digital records.
b)
Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.
c)
No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.
d)
None of the above

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that th...

The SC is a court of record and hears matters that affect rights of the people. The information sought is of public nature as it affects the efficiency of the court too. The courts maintain this data suo moto on their websites. Hence, option (B) is correct.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Anand is an advocate. His recent PILs were denied by Judge A & B. He filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the details proof of academic qualifications of Judge ‘A’ & ‘B’. Can his application be allowed?

View answer

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Naini is an RTI activist, she filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing her with the total number of clerks working at the SC alongwith their names and gender. Can her application be allowed?

View answer

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Anand is an advocate. His recent PILs were denied by Judge ‘A’. He filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the details of bank account transactions between the Judge A and his Son-in-law who is a successful real estate businessman. Can his application be allowed?

View answer

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Naini is an RTI activist, she filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing her with the details of monthly allowances granted to all Judges of the SC. Can her application be allowed?

View answer

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Naini is an RTI activist, she had successfully filed an RTI application to get the information about the expenditure incurred on the recent foreign trips of the PM. The CJI had recently travelled to an NLU for the annual convocation, can she file an RTI to procure information about the expenditure of the travel?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Supreme Court ruled in CPIO, SC vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.Whether a public authority discloses the information sought or not, however, is a different matter. Offices such as those of the Prime Minister and the President too are public authorities under the RTI Act. But public authorities have often denied information quoting separate observations by the Supreme Court itself in 2011: “Officials need to furnish only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority and not collate or create information”; and, “the nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties”.On December 16, 2015 (RBI vs Jayantilal N Mistry and Others), the Supreme Court noted: “It had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.”Q.Ashok is an advocate, he filed an RTI application before the Chief Information Office of SC for providing him with the number of appeals filed by Central Govt. before the SC. Can his application be allowed?a)No, because the court does not have digital records.b)Yes, the cases filed before the SC are of public knowledge hence the application should be allowed.c)No, the computation of all such information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam