← All questionsGS4 · 2013 · Ethics Case Study ·PIO's Dilemma over Self-incriminating RTI
QUESTION 9
GS4
20 marks

A Public Information Officer has received an application under RTI Act. Having gathered the information, the PIO discovers that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were found to be not altogether right. There were other employees who were also party to these decisions. Disclosure of the information is likely to lead to disciplinary action with possibility of punishment against him as well as some of his colleagues. Non-disclosure or part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure of information will result into lesser punishment or no punishment. The PIO is otherwise an honest and conscientious person but this particular decision, on which the RTI application has been filed, turned out to be wrong. He comes to you for advice. The following are some suggested options. Please evaluate the merits and demerits of each of the options:1) The PIO could refer the matter to his superior officer and seek his advice and act strictly in accordance with the advice, even though he is not completely in agreement with the advice of the superior.2) The PIO could proceed on leave and leave the matter to be dealt by his successor in office or request for transfer of the application to another PIO.3) The PIO could weigh the consequences of disclosing the information truthfully, including the effect on his career, and reply in a manner that would not place him or his career in jeopardy, but at the same time a little compromise can be made on the contents of the information.4) The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice. Also please indicate (without necessarily restricting to the above options) what you would like to advise, giving proper reasons.

WRITE IN
14 min
250 words

What the examiner wants

Advise an honest PIO whether to disclose information that exposes his own and colleagues' wrong decisions.

Case studyName the stakeholders and the issues, weigh the options, and say what you would do and why.

Demand-wise check

  1. 1Stakeholders: applicant, PIO, colleagues, department, public≈50 words
  2. 2Ethical issues: self-interest vs duty, transparency, honesty, loyalty to colleagues, rule of law≈50 words
  3. 3Options: refer to superior (shifts responsibility, risk of cover-up); leave/transfer (evasion); partial or camouflaged disclosure (illegal, dishonest); consult colleagues (collusion risk)≈50 words
  4. 4Advice: full disclosure within RTI exemptions; record bona fide nature of past decisions; own the error; seek fair inquiry≈50 words

Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.

Answer plan

FactsStakeholdersEthical issuesEvaluate each optionAdviceLong-term lesson (learning from errors)

Where marks usually go

  • Recommending partial disclosure to save careers
  • Not evaluating all four options

Draw this

  • Option-evaluation table: option, merit, demerit, legality

Value addition

  • LawRTI Act 2005 Section 20 lets Information Commissions penalise PIOs ₹250 a day, up to ₹25,000, for malafide denial or misleading information.RTI Act, 2005
  • LawSection 8 lists exemptions; embarrassment to officials is not one.RTI Act, 2005

Mapped topper copies

Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.

Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.