The Central Vigilance Commission was set up in 1964 on the recommendation of which committee?
- A.Santhanam Committee
- B.Kothari Committee
- C.Balwant Rai Mehta Committee
- D.Ashok Mehta Committee
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is A, the Santhanam Committee. The Committee on Prevention of Corruption, chaired by K. Santhanam, reported in 1964, and the Central Vigilance Commission was created in the same year by a government resolution as the apex body for vigilance in the Union administration. It remained a non-statutory body until the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 gave it statutory status, with a Central Vigilance Commissioner and not more than two Vigilance Commissioners holding office for four years or till the age of sixty-five. Option B, the Kothari Committee, is associated with education and with the civil services examination pattern. Option C, the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee of 1957, recommended the three-tier panchayati raj system. Option D, the Ashok Mehta Committee of 1977, recommended a two-tier panchayat structure, so both are panchayat committees.
Read the full article: RTI Act 2005 and Good Governance Laws: Notes
Practice Questions
View allThe Right to Information Act, 2005 came into force fully on which date?
- A.15 June 2005
- B.12 October 2005
- C.1 January 2006
- D.26 November 2005
Show answer
The RTI Act received the assent of the President on 15 June 2005, and Section 1(3) provided that the remaining provisions would come into force on the one hundred and twentieth day of its enactment.
Read the full explanation →Under the RTI Act, 2005, information concerning the life or liberty of a person must be provided within:
- A.48 hours
- B.7 days
- C.30 days
- D.35 days
Show answer
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act lays down two limits. The ordinary limit is thirty days from the receipt of the application, but where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person the Public Information Officer must supply it within forty-eight hours of the request.
Read the full explanation →What is the maximum penalty that an Information Commission can impose on a Public Information Officer under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005?
- A.Rs 10,000
- B.Rs 25,000
- C.Rs 50,000
- D.Rs 1,00,000
Show answer
Section 20(1) provides that where an Information Commission finds that a Public Information Officer has refused an application without reasonable cause, has not furnished information within the time specified, has given incorrect or misleading information or has destroyed information, it may impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees…
Read the full explanation →Which section of the RTI Act, 2005 gives it an overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act, 1923?
- A.Section 8
- B.Section 18
- C.Section 22
- D.Section 24
Show answer
Section 22 states that the provisions of the RTI Act have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, in any other law in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law.
Read the full explanation →A second appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 lies to the Information Commission within how many days of the decision appealed against?
- A.30 days
- B.45 days
- C.60 days
- D.90 days
Show answer
The Act provides two appeals. Under Section 19(1) the first appeal is filed within thirty days of the reply or of the expiry of the time limit, and it goes to an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer within the same public authority, the First Appellate Authority.
Read the full explanation →