Q8
(a) "There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that 'public interest litigation' is now tending to become 'publicity interest litigation' or 'private interest litigation', and has a tendency to be counter-productive." Examine the statement critically. 20 (b) Discuss the relevance of the 'safe harbour' clause under the Information Technology Act 2000. Comment on the need to make the intermediaries liable for transmitting the posts and communications of third parties. 15 (c) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought. Are there any exceptions to this rule? Explain with suitable illustrations. 15
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) "हाल के वर्षों में, यह महसूस किया जा रहा है जो कि निराधार नहीं है, कि 'लोक हित वाद' अब 'प्रचार हित वाद' या 'निजी हित वाद' की ओर अनुकूल हो रहा है और जो एक प्रत्युत्पादक प्रवृत्ति है।" इस कथन का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। 20 (b) सूचना तकनीकी अधिनियम 2000 के अंतर्गत 'सेफ हार्बर' (सुरक्षित आश्रय) उपखंड की सुसंगतता का विवेचना कीजिए। तीसरे पक्षों की प्रविष्टियों (पोस्ट्स) और सूचनाओं को परोक्षित करने के लिए मध्यस्थों (विचौलियों) को उत्तरदायी बनाने की आवश्यकता पर टिप्पणी कीजिए। 15 (c) एक सूचना जिस रूप में मांगी गयी है, साधारणतया उसी रूप में दी जानी आवश्यक है। क्या इस नियम के कोई अपवाद हैं? उपयुक्त उदाहरण सहित समझाइए। 15
Directive word: Critically examine
This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The directive 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced evaluation with evidence; parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'explain' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction acknowledging the tension in PIL's evolution; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with legal provisions, case law, and critical analysis; conclusion synthesizing themes on judicial accountability, intermediary responsibility, and transparency limits.
Key points expected
- Part (a): PIL's original purpose (S.P. Gupta, Hussainara Khatoon) versus misuse (frivolous petitions, political agendas, judicial overreach); Supreme Court's self-corrective measures (locus standi tightening, imposition of costs, dismissal of vexatious petitions)
- Part (a): Critical assessment of 'publicity interest litigation' critique—media trials, surrogate litigation, corporate PILs; counter-arguments on access to justice for marginalized
- Part (b): Section 79 of IT Act 2000 and Rules 2011—conditions for safe harbour (due diligence, takedown upon actual knowledge); intermediary categories (passive conduit, cache, host)
- Part (b): Need for intermediary liability—Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (striking down S.66A), evolving EU Digital Services Act comparison; debate on active monitoring vs. chilling effect
- Part (c): Section 7(9) of RTI Act 2009—'form in which it is sought' rule; exceptions under S.7(9) proviso (disproportionate diversion of resources, infringement of copyright, endangering life/physical safety)
- Part (c): Illustrations—digitization of voluminous records, third-party information formats, disclosure of intellectual property; case law on CPIO's discretion and applicant's right to inspection
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precisely cites S.79 IT Act with 2011 Rules for (b); S.7(9) RTI Act with proviso conditions for (c); PIL's constitutional basis (Art.32/226) with specific amendments/circulars for (a); no conflation of provisions | Identifies correct statutes but misses sub-sections or misstates conditions (e.g., confuses 'actual knowledge' with 'general awareness' in safe harbour); vague on RTI format exceptions | Wrong provisions cited (e.g., S.66A for intermediary liability), omits key statutory conditions, or conflates IT Act with RTI provisions |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | For (a): S.P. Gupta (1981), Hussainara Khatoon, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, recent cases like State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (PIL misuse); for (b): Shreya Singhal, Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes, Google v. Visaka Industries; for (c): Namit Sharma v. Union of India, CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay | Mentions landmark cases but misses recent jurisprudence or misapplies ratios; e.g., cites Shreya Singhal only for 66A strike-down not intermediary liability principles | No case law or incorrect citations (e.g., Vishaka guidelines for PIL); generic references without case names |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a): Analyzes locus standi evolution, epistolary jurisdiction, and judicial self-restraint doctrines; for (b): Explicates 'actual knowledge' vs. 'specific knowledge' distinction, intermediary liability theories (strict liability, negligence, safe harbour); for (c): Interprets 'disproportionate diversion' and copyright interface doctrinally | Describes doctrines superficially without analytical depth; conflates 'discussion' with mere description of provisions | No doctrinal engagement; purely descriptive or narrative answer without legal concepts |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | For (a): Compares Indian PIL with US public law litigation, UK judicial review reforms; for (b): References EU Digital Services Act, Section 230 CDA US, Singapore's approach; for (c): Compares RTI format rules with UK FOI Act, Australian FOI principles; constitutional balance between transparency and administrative efficiency | Mentions foreign jurisdictions without specific comparison or misses constitutional values (Art.19, 21 interplay) | No comparative or constitutional perspective; insular Indian law treatment |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts: PIL's need for gatekeeping mechanisms mirrors intermediary liability's knowledge-based thresholds and RTI's proportionality principle—all balancing access with systemic integrity; offers concrete reform suggestions (pre-filing scrutiny, graduated liability, digitization mandates) | Separate conclusions for each part without synthesis; generic recommendations without specificity | No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely summative without forward-looking application |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Law 2024 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and Judicial pronouncements : 10…
- Q2 (a) "Justification for introduction of 'plea-bargaining' in India was that it will reduce delay in case of undertrial prisoners in a cheape…
- Q3 (a) "It is the mode of acquiring possession of property of other party with/without his consent, which determines the type of offence again…
- Q4 (a) 'If an enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profits, the cost of any accident ari…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and Judicial pronouncements : 10…
- Q6 (a) Discuss the rules which are taken into account by the courts while awarding damages for the breach of contract. Refer to the relevant s…
- Q7 (a) "The principle of arbitral autonomy is an integral element of the ever evolving domain of arbitration law .... The basis of arbitral au…
- Q8 (a) "There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that 'public interest litigation' is now tending to become 'p…