Test: The RTI Act, 2005 - UGC NET MCQ

Statement 1 is correct because individuals can indeed appeal to the FAA if they are dissatisfied with a PIO's decision.
Statement 2 is incorrect as courts do not have general authority over RTI matters; they can only intervene in cases of clear violations of the RTI Act.

Thus, the correct answer is Option A.

Statement 1 is incorrect because the Central Information Commission (CIC) is responsible for national oversight, not state-level implementation.
Statement 2 is correct as State Information Commissions (SICs) do adjudicate on matters related to the RTI Act within their states.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B: 2 Only.

- The Assertion is true, as the RTI Act explicitly outlines circumstances under which information may be withheld.

- The Reason is false; the exemptions under the RTI Act do not include information that is already in the public domain. Instead, the Act is designed to promote transparency by allowing access to such information. Thus, the Reason does not explain the Assertion correctly.

- The Assertion is true because it is a requirement under the RTI Act for public authorities to appoint a PIO for handling RTI applications.

- The Reason is also true; however, it does not serve as a correct explanation for the Assertion. While it is true that a PIO may forward requests to the appropriate PIO if they concern a different department, this does not negate the requirement for each authority to have a designated PIO.

The primary objective of the RTI Act, 2005, is to promote transparency and accountability within public authorities. By providing citizens with the legal right to access information, the Act empowers them to engage actively in governance and ensure that government institutions are held accountable for their actions. This is crucial in a democratic society where informed citizens can participate effectively in the decision-making processes.

Public authorities are required to proactively disclose certain categories of information, which means they must make crucial details accessible to the public without waiting for specific requests. This approach is intended to promote transparency and accountability in governance. An interesting fact is that this proactive disclosure helps reduce the volume of RTI requests, allowing authorities to focus on more complex inquiries.

- The Assertion is true because governments often classify information that could harm diplomatic relations to safeguard their national interests.

- The Reason is also true as national security is indeed a priority.

- Furthermore, the Reason correctly explains the Assertion, as protecting diplomatic relations is a part of maintaining national security.

A key provision of the RTI Act, 2005, is that information must be provided to citizens within a specified timeframe, typically within 30 days. This provision is essential for ensuring that citizens receive timely information, which is vital for effective participation in the democratic process. Additionally, the Act applies broadly to all public authorities, not just the central government, thus promoting widespread accountability.

- The Assertion is true; commercially sensitive data is often exempt from public disclosure to protect trade secrets.

- The Reason is false because public authorities must demonstrate why personal information should be withheld, particularly if it does not serve public interest.

- Therefore, while both statements are true, the Reason does not correctly explain the Assertion.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act is designed to empower citizens by providing them the right to access information held by public authorities. This transparency promotes accountability and encourages active participation in governance. An interesting fact is that RTI laws have been enacted in numerous countries, reflecting a global movement toward greater transparency and citizen engagement in the political process.