Question Description
Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?a)In specific cases, keeping in mind the larger public interest.b)In every case it is requested in, considering that the judiciary is not independent of accountability.c)In specific cases where the independence of the judiciary is not hampered by the disclosure.d)In no case it is requested in.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.