Question Description
Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect 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 Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage:The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.Q.What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the casediscussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case?a)Chirag Patelb)Subhash Chandra Agarwalc)M. Sreenivasd)Sanjay DubeyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.