Polity – True/False – GK Questions

RTI Act, Section 8(1)(i): Exempts cabinet papers including records of Council of Ministers, Secretaries, etc., until decision implemented and reasons made public. However, once decision taken and matter complete, exemption ceases. Section 8(2): Even exempt information must be disclosed if public interest in disclosure outweighs harm to protected interests. Balances transparency with effective governance and collective responsibility.

RTI Act, 2005 (Section 15 for CIC, Section 16 for SICs): Appointment committee: (a) Union: PM (Chairperson), LoP in Lok Sabha, Union Cabinet Minister nominated by PM, (b) State: CM (Chairperson), LoP in Assembly, State Cabinet Minister nominated by CM. 2019 Amendment changed tenure and salary conditions to be prescribed by Central Government, raising concerns about executive influence on Information Commissions' independence.

CBI is not a constitutional/statutory body; established by Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Functions under administrative control of DoPT, Ministry of Personnel. This has raised concerns about executive influence on CBI investigations. Supreme Court in Vineet Narain case (1997) directed measures to ensure CBI independence, including fixed tenure for Director. Debate continues on granting statutory independence to CBI.

Paschim Banga (1996): SC held: (a) Right to health is integral to right to life under Article 21, (b) Government has constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical facilities, (c) Failure of government hospital to provide timely treatment violates Article 21, (d) State liable to pay compensation for negligence. Foundation for right to health jurisprudence; led to improvements in public health infrastructure.

Subhash Kumar (1991): SC held: (a) Right to life under Article 21 includes right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air, (b) Citizens can approach courts under Article 32/226 for enforcement of environmental rights, (c) PIL mechanism enables public-spirited persons to seek environmental protection. Foundation for environmental jurisprudence; led to closure of polluting industries, protection of forests, rivers.

Aadhaar Judgment (2018): 4:1 majority upheld Aadhaar Act for: (a) Welfare schemes (to prevent leakage), (b) PAN-Aadhaar linking (to curb tax evasion), (c) IT Act compliance. Struck down: (a) Mandatory linking with bank accounts/mobile numbers (disproportionate invasion of privacy), (b) Aadhaar authentication for school admissions (violates children's privacy). Balances state interest in welfare delivery with right to privacy.

Navtej Singh Johar (2018): 5-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 377 IPC to extent it criminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults. Held: (a) Violates Article 14 (arbitrary classification), Article 15 (discrimination based on sexual orientation), Article 19 (expression of identity), Article 21 (privacy, dignity, autonomy), (b) Sexual orientation intrinsic to personality; discrimination unconstitutional. Landmark LGBTQ+ rights judgment.

Olga Tellis (Pavement Dwellers Case, 1985): SC held: (a) Right to livelihood is integral to right to life under Article 21 (no person can live without means of living), (b) Eviction of pavement dwellers without alternative arrangement violates Article 21, (c) However, State can evict for public purpose with due procedure and rehabilitation. Expanded scope of Article 21 beyond physical existence to dignified life.

Unnikrishnan (1993): SC held right to education up to age 14 is fundamental right implicit in Article 21 (life with dignity). Directed State to provide free education within economic capacity. Led to 86th Amendment (2002) inserting Article 21A making education for 6-14 years a Fundamental Right, operationalized by RTE Act, 2009. Illustrates judicial legislation prompting constitutional amendment.

Hussainara Khatoon (1979): SC held right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 (life and personal liberty). Case involved undertrial prisoners detained for periods longer than maximum sentence for alleged offences. Led to release of thousands of undertrials; established procedural due process as part of Article 21. Foundation for subsequent PILs on prison reforms, legal aid, human rights.

Puttaswamy case (2017): 9-judge bench unanimously held right to privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty under Article 21; also part of freedoms under Article 19 and equality under Article 14. Overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) which held privacy not a fundamental right. Foundation for subsequent judgments on Aadhaar, decriminalization of homosexuality, reproductive rights.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench unanimously held that Right to Privacy is: (1) An intrinsic part of Article 21 (life and personal liberty), (2) Part of freedoms under Part III (e.g., Article 19), (3) A natural right inherent in human dignity. This judgment has profound implications for data protection, surveillance, and personal autonomy.

Article 78(a) requires the Prime Minister to communicate all Council of Ministers' decisions to the President, but does not specify language. Article 346 allows communication between States and with the Union in Hindi or English. In practice, English remains dominant in high-level executive communication due to administrative continuity and linguistic diversity.

In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court held that it can award monetary compensation in PIL/writ petitions for violation of Fundamental Rights, especially under Article 32. This 'constitutional tort' remedy provides immediate relief to victims when ordinary civil remedies are inadequate, enhancing access to justice.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court held that 'speedy trial' is an essential component of 'reasonable, fair, and just procedure' under Article 21. Delayed justice violates personal liberty, especially for undertrial prisoners. This has driven reforms in criminal justice administration.

The Official Languages Act, 1963 (amended in 1967) allows English to continue indefinitely for: (1) Official purposes of the Union, (2) Parliamentary proceedings, (3) Central-State and inter-State communication, (4) Competitive exams. This was a pragmatic solution to linguistic diversity, balancing Hindi promotion with administrative continuity.

Article 338 establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) as a constitutional body. The 89th Amendment Act, 2003 bifurcated the earlier combined commission into separate NCSC (Article 338) and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST, Article 338A). Both have powers of a civil court for investigating safeguards implementation.

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge bench unanimously held that Section 377 IPC (criminalizing 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature') violated: Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (freedom of expression), and Article 21 (privacy, dignity, autonomy). This landmark judgment affirmed LGBTQ+ rights as Fundamental Rights.

Article 345 empowers State Legislatures to adopt any language(s) in use in the State or Hindi as the official language for state-level administration. For example, Tamil Nadu uses Tamil, Kerala uses Malayalam, while some states like Karnataka use both Kannada and English. However, communication with the Union must be in Hindi or English (Article 346).

Epistolary jurisdiction is a unique feature of Indian PIL where the Supreme Court/High Courts can treat letters, postcards, or newspaper reports as writ petitions if they reveal violations of fundamental rights of disadvantaged groups. This relaxes procedural formalities to enhance access to justice, pioneered in cases like Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984).