CIC: Provide the name of persons making recommendations for Padma awards as the same would make the process transparent & will be in the interest of the public as the public would become aware as to who is recommending whose name for the prestigious award

Date of Hearing : 16.02.2016

ORDER

1. Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed an application dated 26.03.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on 18 points pertaining to Padma Awards including

(i) complete information together with related correspondence/file notings/documents on each aspect of submissions ‘Did eminent persons decline to be on Padma Awards Committee’, ‘Take back Padma Award from Saif Ali Khan’ and ‘Vijay Kelkar recommended Padma Award for a wilful bank defaulter’,

(ii) complete information together with related file notings/documents/correspondence on selecting eminent personalities for Awards Committee for Padma Awards2014,

(iii) names of personalities (including their respective field of eminence) who were invited to join the Awards Committee for Padma Awards2014 together with offers letters etc.,sent and

(iv) related correspondence/file notings/documents on sending such offer letters – etc.

2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 14.07.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO has not provided information on point nos. 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) too disposed of his first appeal without any relief except for providing certain documents free of cost which were awaited till filing of the Second Appeal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to respond to query numbers (8), (9), (12), (14) and (15) as per submissions made.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal and the respondent Shri Satpal Chouhan, Joint Secretary, MHA were present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that the information sought in point nos. 8 and 9 of the RTI application has not been provided despite the CPIO stating in his reply that some informal objections against some of the Padma Awardees, 2014 were received. The appellant further submitted that no information on point no. 12 has been provided. On point no. 14 of the RTI application, the appellant submitted that the response given by the CPIO is not practical as the probability of all the members of the Award Committee agreeing/consenting to same awardees without any dissent is rare. With regard to information sought on point no. 15 of the RTI application, the appellant stated that the respondent by taking the plea of 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. of the RTI Act, is trying to hide the lapses in the selection procedure of Padma Awardees.

5. The respondent submitted that the information sought in point nos. 8 and 9 of the RTI application cannot be provided as no consolidated data with regard to the objections is maintained by the ministry. The respondent further submitted that no information on point no. 12 is available. With regard to information sought in point no. 14, the respondent submitted that the recommendations of Padma Awards Committee is decided on general consensus. As regards, point no. 15 of the RTI application, disclosure of information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals whose Padma Awards are taken back, hence, the same is exempted 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. of the RTI Act.

Decision:

6. The Commission after hearing both the parties and perusing the records directs the CPIO to provide information sought on point nos. 8, 9 and 12 of the RTI application to the appellant. The Commission in this regard specifically directs the CPIO to furnish only the total number of objections received and number of persons against whom the objections have been received severing there from the name of the person filing the objection and the name of the person against whom the objection is filed.

7. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the name of persons making recommendations for Padma awards as the same would make the process transparent and will be in the interest of the public as the public would become aware as to who is recommending whose name for the prestigious award. The Commission vide its earlier order 08.10.2013 in Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. MHA, F. No CIC/SS/A/2013/001648 has held:

“14. …….giving recommendations for Padma Awards is open to the public as per the notification inviting recommendations /nominations, which is published on the website of Ministry of Home Affairs. Private individuals or bodies etc. are not bound to recommend the names of the person for Padma Awards under any law or statute; they do so on their own. The Commission is of the view that such nominations/recommendation do not qualify to be personal information or confidential information the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the person recommending/nominating names of persons. 17. In view of the above, the Commission feels that the disclosure of information asked for undoubtedly has a relationship to public activity and larger public interest is involved in disclosure of such information, once the Padma Awards are finally awarded. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to disclose the names of the persons making recommendation/nomination to the appellant…”

8. The Commission, in view of the above, directs the CPIO to provide information on point nos. 8, 9, 12 and 14 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sudhir Bhargava)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/002427/SB