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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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.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?a)No, the information will lead to unnecessary harassment of the Information Officer.b)No, the information related to name and gender violates to right to privacy of the clerks.c)Yes, the information is open for public disclosure.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.