UPSC Mains 2013 GS Paper 4 Q9: model answer
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 also who were 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: (i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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.
What the question wants
Evaluate four options for a PIO asked to disclose information that exposes his own wrong decision, and give your own advice.
How to structure it
Options, then advice.
- Merit and demerit of (i)–(iv)
- My advice with reasons
How to think it through
The PIO is honest but erred. The law is simple: RTI Section 7 time limit, Section 20 penalty for malafide denial; Section 8 exemptions do not cover embarrassment. Each option shifts the burden: (i) passes responsibility to the boss, (ii) is escape, (iii) is camouflage, i.e. dishonest, (iv) turns colleagues into co-conspirators. Real answer: disclose fully, and separately own the error before disciplinary authority; honest mistakes are treated more leniently than cover-ups. Remember: it is advice to a friend, so tone matters.
Model answer
Stakeholders
- The PIO; colleagues party to the decision; the applicant; the department; the public's right to know.
Dilemmas
- Self-preservation vs duty to disclose; loyalty to colleagues vs the law; a past honest mistake vs a present deliberate lie.
Options
- (i) Superior's advice: shares load, but RTI duty is personal to the PIO.
- (ii) Leave or transfer: evasion, and delay attracts penalty.
- (iii) Partial disclosure: a fresh, deliberate wrong.
- (iv) Colleagues' advice: conflict of interest, collective cover-up.
The PIO's problem is not the RTI application. It is the old decision. Disclosure does not create the mistake; it only reveals it.
Evaluating the options
- (i) Act on the superior's advice: he gets a second view, but the duty under the RTI Act rests on the PIO by name. If the advice is to withhold, he still faces penalty under Section 20.
- (ii) Go on leave or seek transfer of the application: it buys time, nothing more. The 30-day clock runs, the successor inherits the problem, and the PIO adds evasion to error.
- (iii) 'A little compromise' on contents: this is the most dangerous option. A wrong decision taken in good faith becomes a deliberate falsification, which is misconduct and can attract a penalty of up to ₹25,000 and disciplinary action.
- (iv) Consult colleagues who were party to the decision: everyone has a stake in silence. The advice will be self-serving, and if exposed, it looks like a conspiracy.
My advice
- Disclose fully and on time, applying only genuine exemptions under Section 8. Embarrassment is not an exemption.
- Own the error separately: write to the disciplinary authority explaining the decision, the circumstances and the good faith behind it, before the applicant does it for him.
- Inform colleagues of the disclosure as a courtesy, not to seek permission.
- Point out that CCS (Conduct) Rules expect integrity, and disciplinary authorities weigh intent; a bona fide mistake openly admitted is usually punished far less than a cover-up later discovered.
I would tell him plainly: your honesty got you this far; do not spend it to save one bad file. A mistake admitted is a lesson; a mistake hidden is a career risk that never expires.
Draw: A two-path flow: 'disclose + explain' → lesser penalty, trust intact; 'camouflage' → exposure → misconduct + penalty.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
RTI Act 2005, PIO duty personal, Section 7 thirty days, Section 8 exemptions, Section 20 penalty ₹25,000, bona fide mistake, cover-up, CCS (Conduct) Rules, conflict of interest, owning the error, integrity, courage of conviction.
Where most answers lose marks
- Picking option (i) as 'safe'; the PIO cannot outsource a statutory duty to his boss.
Related Mains PYQs
- A business house is working on a project that could displace a forest community from their habitat. As the administrative officer of… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Owing to paucity of time, a university professor generates a Ph.D. evaluation report using Artificial Intelligence and submits it with some modifications.… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- An endangered tribe has developed a severe skeletal deformity. A university research has identified a mineral supplement as a possible remedy, though… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Discuss how national security can be balanced with concerns of human rights. UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
Fresh examples from current affairs
Supreme Court: no prior approval under Section 17A needed to probe a bribe demand
In a judgment of 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that investigating a bribe demand by a public servant does not need prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asking for a bribe, the court said, is not part of discharging official duties.
UPSC angle: Prelims: Sections 7, 7A, 17A and 19 of the PC Act. · Mains GS-II/GS-IV: honest officers versus accountability.
19 Oct 2026Learn the concept
Question text as printed in the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) question paper. The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.
Want every PYQ in one place? See the Battle IAS PYQ Book.