Content

1. PARLIAMENT QUESTION: DISCRIMINATION IN UPSC INTERVIEWS
2. PARLIAMENT QUESTION: STATUS OF RTI 

PARLIAMENT QUESTION: DISCRIMINATION IN UPSC INTERVIEWS

Why is this in News?

• A Parliament Question (04 Dec 2025) asked whether discrimination or bias occurs in UPSC Personality Tests.
• Ministry of Personnel informed Parliament that UPSC interviews are structurally designed to prevent any form of bias.
• UPSC conveyed specific institutional safeguards to ensure anonymity, neutrality, and fairness in the Personality Test.

Relevance:  

GS2 – Governance & Accountability
• Fairness in recruitment systems; safeguards ensuring neutrality in public institutions.
• Strengthens trust in independent constitutional bodies (UPSC under Art. 315).
• Addresses allegations of bias linked to region, language, socio-economic background.

GS2 – Civil Services Reforms
• Interview randomisation, anonymity, moderation → institutional mechanisms for objective evaluation.
• Debates on subjectivity, standardisation, recorded interviews.

What is the UPSC Personality Test?

• Final stage of the Civil Services Examination: 275 marks (no minimum qualifying marks).
• Objective: test overall suitability for public service—judgement, ethics, leadership, mental alertness, balance of mind, communication clarity.
• Conducted by multiple boards, each chaired by a UPSC Member and comprising eminent experts.

Allegations Often Raised by Aspirants 

• Possible variation in marks across Boards.
• Perception of bias based on:
  • Optional subjects
  • Socio-economic background
  • Region, language, or category
• Concerns about transparency and subjectivity in evaluation.

UPSC’s Official Response (As Stated in Parliament)

UPSC denied any discrimination, citing the following systemic safeguards:

a. Randomized Allotment of Candidates

• Candidates are assigned to Boards randomly each day, preventing pre-selection or targeting.

b. Category & Written Marks Not Disclosed

• Boards do not know:
  • Category (SC/ST/OBC/EWS/GEN)
  • Written exam marks
• Eliminates both positive and negative bias.

c. Board Identity Not Disclosed to Candidates

• Candidates do not know in advance which Board they will face, preventing external influence or pressure.

d. Transparency in Results

• After final selection, UPSC publishes:
  • Written marks
  • Interview marks
  • Total marks
• Ensures public scrutiny, discouraging manipulation.

Why These Safeguards Matter ?

• Randomization breaks any predictable pattern that could favour particular groups.
• Non-disclosure of category and marks ensures the interview panel evaluates only:
  • Personality,
  • Demeanor,
  • Reasoning,
  • Ethics,
  • Decision-making.
• Board anonymity reduces potential lobbying or intimidation.
• Disclosure of marks provides an audit trail, promoting trust in outcomes.

Structural Strengths of UPSC Interview System

• Standardized evaluation guidelines across Boards.
• Diverse Board composition ensures balanced perspectives.
• Checks on marking outliers (internal moderation).
• India’s CSE interview model is globally considered high-integrity compared to:
  • US administrative hiring (heavily subjective)
  • UK Civil Service Fast Stream (multiple filters but less anonymity)

Challenges & Criticism 

• Perception of variability in marks across boards persists; data shows 25–40 mark spread is common.
• Some argue for:
  • Recorded interviews
  • Uniform questioning guidelines
  • External observers

However, UPSC holds that flexibility is essential for assessing personality, not rote responses.

Implications for Governance & Public Trust

• Reinforces credibility of the world’s largest merit-based civil service exam.
• Counteracts narratives of discrimination.
• Supports government’s stance on transparency and neutrality in recruitment.
• Critical for maintaining aspirant confidence and ensuring social legitimacy of the selection process.

PARLIAMENT QUESTION: STATUS OF RTI 

Why is this in News?

• A Parliament Question (04 Dec 2025) sought data on RTI applications filed, rejected, and answered between 2019–20 and 2023–24.
• The Ministry of Personnel placed five-year comparative figures, highlighting trends in RTI usage and transparency.
• The data provides an official snapshot of the health of India’s transparency regime.

Relevance:

GS2 – Transparency, Accountability & Governance
• RTI trends as indicators of institutional openness and citizen trust.
• Rise in filings shows demand for accountability; gaps highlight weak proactive disclosure.
• Low rejection rate reflects proper use of Section 8 exemptions.

GS2 – Statutory Bodies
• CIC/SIC workload, pendency, and need for capacity strengthening.

What is the RTI Act, 2005?

• Empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities.
• Mandates:
  • 30-day response timeline
  • Mandatory disclosure of many categories of information
• Promotes accountability, transparency, anti-corruption, and participatory governance.
• RTI performance is a key indicator of institutional openness.

Official Data (As Tabled in Parliament)

(i) RTI Applications Filed

Trend: Steady rise since 2020–21; approx 31% growth over five years.

(ii) RTI Applications Rejected

Trend: Rejection numbers remain around 3–4% of total applications; slight increase in 2023–24.

(iii) RTI Applications Answered

Trend: Response numbers improving; over 13–14 lakh answers annually in recent years.

Overview

a. Increasing Public Reliance on RTI

• Sharp rise from 13.7 lakh (2019–20) to 17.5 lakh (2023–24).
• Indicates growing:
  • Awareness
  • Demand for accountability
  • Digital access (as many RTIs now filed online)

b. Low Rejection Rate

• Rejections remain roughly 3–4%, suggesting:
  • Reasonable access
  • Lower misuse of Section 8 exemptions
  • Improved applicant awareness

But rise in 2023–24 (67k) requires monitoring.

c. Gap Between Filed and Answered

• In 2023–24:
  • Filed: 17.5 lakh
  • Answered: 14.3 lakh
• Gap partly due to:
  • Transfers across departments
  • Pendency
  • Applications not requiring full answers (withdrawn, invalid, etc.)

d. Administrative Load

• 17.5 lakh RTIs annually reflect significant strain on PIOs, diverting resources from core functions.
• Increasing RTI numbers often signal weak proactive disclosure, as mandated under Section 4.

Governance Significance

• RTI statistics serve as a transparency barometer.
• Higher filings = higher trust in RTI mechanisms but also point to:
  • Information hoarding by departments
  • Lack of suo motu disclosure
• High answer rates reinforce credibility of the Act.

Issues & Challenges Highlighted

• Rising workload on PIOs.
• Incomplete data reporting (e.g., 2020–21).
• Variability in rejection practices across ministries.
• Backlog at Information Commissions.
• Digital divide affecting RTI access in rural regions.

Implications for Policy

• Strengthening proactive disclosure to reduce filings.
• Standardised rejection guidelines.
• Capacity building for PIOs.
• Improving CIC/SIC staffing to reduce appeals backlog.
• Full digitisation of RTI records for accuracy.