English and Logical Reasoning Prep Guide
- Exam
- English and Logical Reasoning Prep Guide
- Subject
- English
- Chapter
- Comprehension Ability
English and Logical Reasoning Prep Guide · English · Comprehension Ability
Directions : Read the following passage and answer the questions as...
Directions : Read the following passage and answer the questions as directed.
The right to information (RTI) and the right to privacy (RTP) are two important rights upheld by the Supreme Court of India. For the most part, they are two sides of the same coin. They complement each other in giving Indian citizens the rights they value highly and holding the government accountable to the people. Many presume that when citizens invoke the RTI, then government bodies can seek shelter under the RTP. This is a myth that was recently exposed by the Supreme Court when (I) under the Right to Information Act. The apex court stated that public interest should be (A) upheld while disclosing any information under that law. Notably, the country’s top court had also said that judicial independence and accountability should go hand in hand, and that one cannot wear a garb of privacy as protection from information disclosure requirements under the RTI Act.
Personal information can be denied if it infringes an individual’s privacy. A good example is our medical records. Such information, (II), is exempt from the RTI requirements. According to section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, if the information is personal and would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy and serves no public interest, then it cannot be disclosed, unless the central public information officer or the state public information officer, or any other appellate authority, is of the opinion that the disclosure of this information would serve a larger public interest.
In terms of procedure, before an applicant asks for the personal information of an individual, he or she has to justify the public benefit of its disclosure and (III). If the officer accepts the argument, public interest trumps the RTP. Thus, together, the RTI and RTP present us a paradox. While the two rights frequently look irreconcilable, they can, as stated earlier, act in complementary ways to confer individual rights and promote greater government (B)…………………… and transparency. However, this would require the country to work on reconciliation of the two. ………………..(C)……………….. Since this exercise involves specific legal provisions, it might even call for legislative efforts.
Perhaps, a “conflict resolution strategy” can be adopted to harmonize the two rights. Even though Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act explicitly grants exemption from the disclosure of personal information, for example, it comes with the caveat mentioned above, public interest may warrant the disclosure of such data to an applicant by a public authority, thereby nullifying the exemption and disregarding the RTP.
(D) However, challenging as it may be, it is still possible to demarcate the extent to whom personal information may be disclosed in the general interest. As of now, there is no line of demarcation for disclosure and non-disclosure. This is a bridge that could resolve at least part of the RTI-RTP paradox.
Personal information can be denied if it infringes an individual’s privacy. A good example is our medical records. Such information, (II), is exempt from the RTI requirements. According to section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, if the information is personal and would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy and serves no public interest, then it cannot be disclosed, unless the central public information officer or the state public information officer, or any other appellate authority, is of the opinion that the disclosure of this information would serve a larger public interest.
In terms of procedure, before an applicant asks for the personal information of an individual, he or she has to justify the public benefit of its disclosure and (III). If the officer accepts the argument, public interest trumps the RTP. Thus, together, the RTI and RTP present us a paradox. While the two rights frequently look irreconcilable, they can, as stated earlier, act in complementary ways to confer individual rights and promote greater government (B)…………………… and transparency. However, this would require the country to work on reconciliation of the two. ………………..(C)……………….. Since this exercise involves specific legal provisions, it might even call for legislative efforts.
Perhaps, a “conflict resolution strategy” can be adopted to harmonize the two rights. Even though Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act explicitly grants exemption from the disclosure of personal information, for example, it comes with the caveat mentioned above, public interest may warrant the disclosure of such data to an applicant by a public authority, thereby nullifying the exemption and disregarding the RTP.
(D) However, challenging as it may be, it is still possible to demarcate the extent to whom personal information may be disclosed in the general interest. As of now, there is no line of demarcation for disclosure and non-disclosure. This is a bridge that could resolve at least part of the RTI-RTP paradox.
In the Question below three phrases are given which must be filled in the positions given in I, II and III in the passage. From the options given below, choose the correct order of phrases that should be filled in the positions given.&
A. the disclosure of which would invade someone’s privacy
B. the information officer should be convinced of it
C. it ruled that even the Chief Justice of India’s office will come&
Options
- AACB
- BBAC
- CCAB
- DCBA
Correct answer
C. CAB
Step-by-step solution
Only fragment C fits at (I) and creates a meaningful sentence.
This is a myth that was recently exposed by the Supreme Court when it ruled that even the Chief Justice of India’s office will come under the Right to Information Act.
Only fragment A fits at (II) and creates a meaningful sentence.
A good example is our medical records. Such information, the disclosure of which would invade someone’s privacy, is exempt from the RTI requirements.
Only fragment B fits at (III) and creates a meaningful sentence.
In terms of procedure, before an applicant asks for the personal information of an individual, he or she has to justify the public benefit of its disclosure and the information officer should be convinced of it.
Hence, option C is the correct answer.
This is a myth that was recently exposed by the Supreme Court when it ruled that even the Chief Justice of India’s office will come under the Right to Information Act.
Only fragment A fits at (II) and creates a meaningful sentence.
A good example is our medical records. Such information, the disclosure of which would invade someone’s privacy, is exempt from the RTI requirements.
Only fragment B fits at (III) and creates a meaningful sentence.
In terms of procedure, before an applicant asks for the personal information of an individual, he or she has to justify the public benefit of its disclosure and the information officer should be convinced of it.
Hence, option C is the correct answer.