Question Description
The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct 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 The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct 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 The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct 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 adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is often used to delineate the need for disclosure of matters related to public interest through the Right to Information mechanism. The declaration of assets by ministers and legislators, besides electoral candidates, has gone a long way in shedding light on public authorities and provided the citizenry more relevant information about their representatives. The Representation of People Act passed way back in 1951 also mandates it for prospective legislators. Yet, judges of the Supreme Court had hitherto refused to share information on their personal assets, citing the express lack of public interest. The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges' personal assets.The judgment's majority opinion, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that "disclosure is a facet of public interest". The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges' personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy, even if its implementation has come under strain in recent years due mainly to the Central government's apathy and disregard for the nuts and bolts of the Act.Yet, despite this, the Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency and could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties. This is vital as political party financing is a murky area today, marked by opacity and exacerbated by the issue of electoral bonds, precluding citizens from being fully informed on sources of party incomes.Q. Mr. Ghyanshyam was contesting independently from Delhi South Lok Sabha seat. He refuses to share details about his personal assets. Decide.a)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as he is a public authority under RTI.b)Mr. Ghyanshyam is bound to disclose his personal assets as per the Representation of People Act, 1951.c)Mr. Ghyanshy am i s bound to disclose his personal assets only after he wins.d)Lok Sabha elections are governed by Election Commission of India Act and not RTI.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.