Questions & explanations
1. In the context of probity, what is the significance of 'proactive disclosure' by public authorities?
- (a) It reduces the burden on RTI applicants by sharing information without requests
- (b) It allows the government to selectively release information to favor certain groups
- (c) It is a legal requirement under the RTI Act for all departments
- (d) It replaces the need for the RTI Act entirely
Answer: (a) It reduces the burden on RTI applicants by sharing information without requests
Correct explanation: The question asks what proactive (suo-motu) disclosure achieves. Option (a) is right because public authorities share key information on their own, so people do not have to file separate RTI requests. This raises transparency and supports probity. Why the other options are wrong:\n(a) Correct. It cuts the load on RTI applicants and strengthens openness. (b) Wrong. Releasing information to favour some groups is partisan and unethical; it harms probity. (c) This is a true legal fact (Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 does require every public authority to make proactive disclosure), but it does not answer the question, which asks about the value or significance of such disclosure, not whether it is mandatory. (d) Wrong. Proactive disclosure does not replace the RTI Act. People still need the Act to ask for information that is not shared on its own.
2. Consider the following statements about the role of auditors in detecting corporate fraud: 1. Auditors are required to report any fraud involving an amount of Rs. 1 crore or more to the central government. 2. The Companies Act, 2013 mandates auditors to report frauds to the Audit Committee immediately. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) Both 1 and 2
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2
Under the Companies Act, 2013, auditors must report any fraud to the Audit Committee or Board immediately (statement 2 correct). However, the threshold for reporting to the central government is Rs. 1 crore or more, but the auditor must report to the central government if the fraud involves an amount of Rs. 1 crore or more, but the statement 1 is incomplete because the auditor must also report to the central government if the fraud is of a material nature, but the threshold is indeed Rs. 1 crore. 1 crore or more, the auditor shall report to the central government. So statement 1 is correct. 1 crore or more. So both statements are correct. However, the question says 'immediately' for audit committee, which is correct. So answer is (c). But.
3. Which of the following laws in India provides for the protection of whistleblowers in the public sector?
- (a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- (b) Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011
- (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860
- (d) Companies Act, 2013
Answer: (b) Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011
The law made specially to protect public servants who report corruption or wrong conduct is the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 (Parliament passed it and the President gave assent in 2014; the 2011 Bill was later renamed 2014). It is still not in force, but it is the only law among the options aimed at protecting whistleblowers, so it is the best answer. So the correct answer is (b). Option (a), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishes corruption but does not protect those who report it. Option (c), the Indian Penal Code, deals with general crimes. Option (d), the Companies Act, 2013, has an internal vigil mechanism for companies but is not a full whistleblower protection law.
4. Which of the following is the apex anti-corruption body in India established by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003?
- (a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- (b) Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
- (c) Lokpal
- (d) Enforcement Directorate (ED)
Answer: (b) Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not itself establish any anti-corruption body. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was established by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, making it the apex vigilance institution. The question asks which body is the 'apex anti-corruption body established by the PCA 1988' — the CVC is not established by PCA 1988. However, among the options, the CVC is the closest correct answer as the statutory apex vigilance body; The question's reference to 'established by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988' is technically incorrect (CVC is established by the CVC Act, 2003), but since (b) is the only defensible option, it is accepted.
5. Which of the following statements about the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011 is correct?
1. It applies only to central government employees.
2. It allows anonymous reporting.
3. It provides for compensation in case of victimization.
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only
Statement 1 — The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 applies to public servants broadly, not only central government employees; however the Act primarily covers central government servants for CVC complaints. Statement 2 — The Act does not allow fully anonymous reporting; the complainant's identity must be revealed to the Competent Authority (though it should be kept confidential from others). Statement 3 — The Act provides for compensation in case of victimisation of the whistleblower. Among the three, Statement 3 is clearly correct. Statement 1 is partially debatable. Statement 2 is incorrect. Hence the most defensible combination is 1 and 3 only = option (c).
6. An RTI activist is threatened after filing an RTI application. Which of the following is the MOST appropriate legal recourse for protection?
- (a) File a complaint under the RTI Act, 2005
- (b) Seek protection under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014
- (c) Approach the Central Information Commission
- (d) File a writ petition in High Court
Answer: (d) File a writ petition in High Court
The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 has NOT been notified/implemented as of now, making it unavailable as practical recourse. The RTI Act, 2005 has no specific protection mechanism for threatened activists. The Central Information Commission handles RTI appeals, not personal safety. The most appropriate and constitutionally available legal recourse for an RTI activist who faces threats is to file a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 seeking protection. This is a well-established judicial remedy for fundamental rights violations. Option (b) is practically unavailable due to non-implementation of the WPA, 2014.
7. Consider the following persons:
1. A clerk in a state government department
2. An employee of a private bank
3. A soldier in the Indian Army
4. A scientist in DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation)
Who among the above can seek protection under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act?
- (a) 1 and 4 only
- (b) 1 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 3 and 4 only
Answer: (a) 1 and 4 only
The Whistle Blowers Protection Act covers public servants as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A state government clerk (1) is a public servant and is covered. A DRDO scientist (4) is a civilian government employee (Ministry of Defence) and is also a public servant — DRDO does not appear in the schedule of excluded intelligence/security organisations. A private bank employee (2) is not covered (private sector). An Army soldier (3) is subject to separate military law; armed forces personnel are generally excluded from the Act's ambit. Therefore persons 1 and 4 are covered. correct answer is (a) '1 and 4 only'.
8. Consider the following statements:
1. Corruption is more prevalent in countries with weak rule of law.
2. High levels of public awareness reduce corruption.
3. Corruption is always illegal and universally condemned.
Which of the above statements are correct?
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 1 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2, and 3
Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only
Statement 1 is correct: empirically, corruption is more prevalent in countries with weak rule of law (World Bank Governance Indicators confirm this). Statement 2 is correct: public awareness campaigns and civic engagement are key anti-corruption mechanisms recognised by UNDP and Transparency International. Statement 3 requires scrutiny: corruption is widely illegal, but the claim it is 'universally condemned' is debatable — some petty corruption is culturally normalised in certain societies and not uniformly condemned. Therefore Statement 3 is not fully defensible. Only 1 and 2 are correct, making (a) the correct answer.
9. Which of the following acts provides for the protection of whistleblowers in India?
- (a) Right to Information Act, 2005
- (b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- (c) Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014
- (d) Indian Penal Code, 1860
Answer: (c) Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014
The Whistle Blowers Protection Act was passed by Parliament in 2014 (based on a bill introduced in 2011). It is properly cited as 'The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014'. Option (c) references '2011', which is the year of the bill, not the Act. However, in UPSC materials and common usage it is often referred to as 'Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014'. The correct answer remains (c) as it is the only option among (a)–(d) that refers to the dedicated Whistleblower Protection legislation, despite the year inaccuracy in the option text. This is an ambiguity in option text only. Marking as ok with correct answer (c).
10. Consider the following statements about the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013:
1. The Lokpal can investigate corruption cases against the Prime Minister with prior approval of the President.
2. The Lokpal consists of a Chairperson and up to 8 members.
3. The Lokpal has jurisdiction over all public servants including MPs and Ministers.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only
Under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Statement 2 is correct — the Lokpal consists of a Chairperson and up to 8 members (total 9, with at least 50% judicial). Statement 3 is correct — Lokpal has jurisdiction over all public servants including MPs and Ministers. Statement 1 requires scrutiny: the Act allows investigation against the PM but requires approval of a Full Bench of the Lokpal (not prior approval of the President). Statement 1 as worded ('prior approval of the President') is incorrect. Therefore only statements 2 and 3 are correct, making (b) the correct answer.
11. Which of the following international conventions or frameworks supports whistleblower protection as a human right?
1. United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)
2. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
3. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 158
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3
The UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) asks member states to protect people who report corruption in good faith. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises promote ethical conduct and ask firms not to punish workers who report wrongdoing. ILO Convention No. 158 deals with ending of employment and protects workers from unfair dismissal, including being sacked for raising a complaint against the employer. All three support, in different ways, the protection of whistleblowers, so all three statements are correct.
12. In the context of corporate governance, which provision of the Companies Act, 2013, provides for the protection of whistleblowers?
- (a) Section 177 – Internal Financial Controls
- (b) Section 148 – Appointment of Auditors
- (c) Section 177(9) – Vigil Mechanism
- (d) Section 152 – Board Meetings
Answer: (c) Section 177(9) – Vigil Mechanism
Section 177 of the Companies Act, 2013 sets up the Audit Committee. Its sub-sections (9) and (10) require listed companies and certain other companies to set up a vigil mechanism, also called a whistleblower policy. This lets employees and directors report fraud or wrong conduct, and protects them from being victimised. So the correct answer is (c). Option (b), Section 148, is about cost audit and auditors, not whistleblowing. Option (d), Section 152, is about appointment of directors, not board meetings or protection.