The recommendation placed before Awards Committee for awarding ‘Padmashree’ to Arun Firodia - CIC: information regarding nominations for Padamshree does not qualify to be personal or commercial information which is exempt u/s 8(1)(j)
7 Nov, 2013The recommendation placed before Awards Committee for awarding ‘Padmashree’ to Arun Firodia mentioning date of receipt of recommendation and names of recommending person / body were denied u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. - CIC: the information regarding nominations for Padamshree does not qualify to be personal information or confidential information the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the person recommending it as it is open to the public at large to file such nominations for the highest civilian award of the country - it would be in the interest of the public to make the process of such selection transparent - the list of persons making such nominations for the awardee shall be provided to the appellant - information regarding complaint registered with the MHA through PG portal to be provided if the decision has been taken by the respondent
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.3.2012 addressed to the CPIO, MHA seeking information on (19) points, however, the RTI postal receipt is dated 13.8.2012. The CPIO provided a point wise reply vide letter dated 13.9.2012. Not satisfied with the reply, appellant filed first appeal dated 19.9.2012. The said appeal was disposed off vide order dated 2.11.2012. In the second appeal, the appellant has contested information in relation to point no. (3), (4), (8), (9) and (13) to (18). The appellant has also contested that section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. of the RTI Act allows access to information if public interest outweighs the harm to be protected and that public interest in this case definitely demands disclosure of information as sought under query no. (9) of the RTI Application.
2. Reply to the points raised above are perused as follows:
· At point no. (3) the appellant sought to know whether MHA has taken cognizance of news-reports relating to ‘Padmashree’ Arun Firodia.
At point no. (4) the appellant sought to know whether MHA and / or intelligence authorities concerned have taken cognizance of news-reports about such controversies involving Arun Firodia.
The CPIO replied with regards to point (3) & (4) stating that action for withdrawal of Padma Awards are not based on media reports. The first appellate authority also reiterated this stand.
· At point no. (8), the appellant sought to have the details together with copies of any such objections and action taken on objections. The CPIO replied that “some objections have been received on conferment of Padma Shri on Shri Arun Firodia after being awarded. No consolidated report is maintained by this ministry. However copies of representations from Shri Sandeep Kapoor and Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal which comprises 7 pages may be provided. Applicant was requested to submit a fee of Rs. 14/- @ Rs.2 per pages as photocopying charge in favour of the Accounts Officer, MHA. The appellant was informed that as per procedure, a person is awarded with Padma Awards after obtaining his/her character and antecedent report from various premier investigating agencies of the country. No cognizance is taken on complaints received against any Padma Awardee unless a formal case is instituted against him.” The first appellate authority also reiterated this stand.
· At point no. (9) the appellant sought a copy of the recommendation placed before Awards Committee for awarding ‘Padmashree’ to Arun Firodia mentioning date of receipt of recommendation and names of recommending person/body etc. The CPIO replied that “recommendations are placed before Padma Awards Committee in form of Citation which contains achievement and also personal details of the individual. Disclosure of such details and recommending authority may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the other individuals under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005. No records for date of receiving of the recommendations is maintained by this Ministry.” The first appellate authority took a similar view that disclosure of personal details of awardee and the recommending authority may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy and it cannot be provided under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005.
· At point (13) the appellant sought to know whether the matter of providing wrong/incomplete inputs about Arun Firodia giving him clean chit despite his being involved in financial irregularities has been taken up with concerned intelligence authorities.
At point no. (14) the appellant sought complete and detailed information on action taken against the concerned persons for giving a clean chit to Arun Firodia.
At point (15) the appellant sought complete and detailed information on action taken to prevent such cases of awarding ‘Padma shree’ to person/s known for financial irregularities like enclosed in news-clippings in future. The CPIO replied with respect to point (13) & (14) that in view of point no. 5 (no action taken to withdraw Padma Shree from Shri Arun Firodia as no cognizance is taken unless a formal complaint is instituted). For point no. (15) the CPIO replied stating that “no action seems to be taken at current stage. However, it is for the investigating agencies to check any financial irregularities during verification.” The first appellate authority held that it has already been informed that no action is taken on media reports in case of Padma Awards, hence the stand of the PIO is correct.
· At point no. (16) and (17) the appellant sought to know cases where ‘Padma’ awards were taken back or asked to surrender and cases where it was refused to do so. The CPIO replied that no such list is maintained by this Ministry, however, the first appellate authority clarified in his order that there are no cases where Padma Award was asked to be surrendered.
· At point (18) the appellant has sought complete and detailed information together with related correspondence/file notings/documents etc on each and every aspect of his submission dated 12.8.2012 “controversies on Padma Awards” (MINHA/E/2012/01035) routed to MHA through PG portal. The CPIO replied stating that the matter is under examination and that the decision on the grievance will be intimated in due course. The first appellate authority has also reiterated that that the matter is under examination.
3. The Commission is of the view that with regards to point no. (3), (4), (8), (13) to (17) adequate information has been provided to the appellant, however, the Commission shall consider the point (9) and (18) of the RTI application.
4. With regards to point no. (9) the Commission is of the view that it is important to consider whether the nominations are filed in confidence or whether such information is personal in nature. The Commission is of the view that such information does not qualify to be personal information or confidential information the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the person recommending it as it is open to the public at large to file such nominations for the highest civilian award of the country. Rather it would be in the interest of the public to make the process of such selection transparent. In view of the above, the list of persons making such nominations for the awardee shall be provided to the appellant within (2) weeks from the receipt of the order. Furthermore, with regard to point no. (18) if the decision has been taken by the respondent, the same shall be provided and if the decision is pending the present status/action taken till date on the submissions shall be provided to the appellant within (2) weeks from the receipt of the order. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Sushma Singh
Information Commissioner
Citation: Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003770