You are a Public Information Officer (PIO) in a government department. You are aware that the RTI Act 2005 envisages transparency and accountability in administration. The act has functioned as a check on the supposedly arbitrarily administrative behaviour and actions. However, as a PIO you have observed that there are citizens who filed RTI applications not for themselves but on behalf of such stakeholders who purportedly want to have access to information to further their own interests. At the same time there are these RTI activists who routinely file RTI applications and attempt to extort money from the decision makers. This type of RTI activism has affected the functioning of the administration adversely and also possibly jeopardises the genuineness of the applications which are essentially aimed at getting justice. What measures would you suggest to separate genuine and non-genuine applications? Give merits and demerits of your suggestions.
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
The Tamil Nadu government has issued an executive order exempting its Public (Law and Order) Department from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005, invoking Section 24 of the legislation. This notification shields sensitive administrative domains—including records related to communal and caste clashes, National Security Act detentions, custodial death inquiries, and protests by students and farmers—from public scrutiny. While state authorities justify the move as a measure to protect operational confidentiality and prevent the misuse of sensitive intelligence, legal experts and civil society groups have raised profound concerns over transparency erosion, executive overreach, and the weakening of institutional accountability in matters concerning fundamental rights and state action.
On September 24, 2026, the organization Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) announced a significant shift in its operational schedule, cancelling previously planned programs to address the escalating concerns surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI). The organization announced a press conference in New Delhi titled "Hijacking of India's Democracy," which centers on the functioning of the ECI and specific scrutiny regarding Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. This development reflects growing civil society apprehension regarding the perceived erosion of institutional independence and the need for administrative transparency within India's premier electoral management body. As the nation prepares for future electoral cycles, the focus has increasingly turned toward the autonomy of constitutional institutions and the mechanisms by which they are held accountable.
On September 27, 2026, Ashutosh Ranka and a team from the non-governmental organization Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) were detained by authorities in Guwahati, Assam. The incident occurred while the team was purportedly engaged in a fact-finding mission to assess the ground-level conditions of educational institutions in the state. The detention has reignited a critical discourse regarding the operational independence of civil society organizations, the boundaries of state authority in restricting movement, and the perceived antagonism between administrative narratives of development and independent investigative efforts by NGOs.