CentralInformationCommission nd 2ry] foxa c /2 Floor,BWing vxLr kfUr Hkou /AugustKrantiBhavan Hkhdkth dkek Iysl/BhikajiCamaPlace ubZ fnYyh 110066/NewDelhi110066

dsUnzh;lwpukvk;ksx

Appellant Agrawal Respondents

F.No CIC/SS/A/2013/001648 Dated:08.10.2013 :ShriSubhashChandra :MinistryofHomeAffairs ORDER Thisisthe2ndappealfiledbyShriSubhashChandra

AgrawalagainstMinistryofHomeAffairs,correspondingto his RTI application dated 28.01.2013 seeking information relatingtoPadmaAwards2013. 2. In his RTI application, Shri Agrawal had sought

information on 28 points relating to list of nominations for Padma Awards 2013. Vide letter dated 8.3.2013, the CPIO provided pointwise replies to the appellant. However, not satisfied with the reply, the appellantfiledfirstappealdated11.3.2013statingthat thenamesofrecommendingpersonswerenotprovided.The first appellate authority held that name of the recommending authority is a personal information and it cannotbeprovidedundersection8(1)(j)oftheRTIAct, 2005.

3.

Inthe2ndappealpetitionfiledbeforetheCommission,

theappellantinteralia,statedasunder:
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page1of9

i)

TheCPIOdemandedforphotocopyingchargesafter a lapse of stipulated period of 30 days. Thereforethecopyingchargesberefundedtohim. The CPIO, provided the documents on payment of copyingchargesandthesamewereincomplete.

ii)

iii) He had requested in his firstappeal dated 11.3.2013, to provide names of recommending personsforeachoftherecommendedones,since the Prime Ministers Office (PMO) had provided notonlynamesofrecommendingpersons,butalso all papers sent by recommending ones along with therecommendationsinrespectofearlieryear. iv) CPIOdemandedatotalsumofrupeeseightysixin respect of query numbers (1), (7), (8), (9), (11), (23), (24) and (28) allegedly because she received RTI petition dated 28.1.2013 through SpeedPost.TheSpeedPostinlocaldeliveryis deliveredonthenextworkingday.Therefore,an enquirybeorderedandcopiesofrelatedincoming registers for mails and filemovement of RTI petition may be provided to ascertain that his RTIpetitionaddressedtoDirector(A&V)&CPIO atMHAreallyreachedtotheCPIOon8.3.2013. 4. PursuanttotheCommissionsNoticedated09.07.2013,

the matter was heard on 12.08.2013. The appellant Shri Agrawal was present in person The respondents were represented by Ms. Shyamala Mohan, Director(A&V) & CPIO andShriPandeyPradeepKumar,US(P). 5. Heard the oral submissions of both the parties and perusedthedocumentsavailableinthefile.Theappellant has filed the second appeal for seeking the names of recommendingpersonsforeachnominationfreeofcost.The appellant submits vide his second appeal that the Prime
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page2of9

MinistersOffice has provided thenamesofrecommending personsalongwithallpaperssentbyrecommendingones.

6.

The issues under consideration before the (A) (B) Whether the CPIO was correct in demanding Whetherthenamesoftherecommendingpersonsare exemptedunderSection8(1)(j)oftheRTIAct.

Commissionareasfollows: photocopyingcharges.

` 7. These issues are discussed in the following

paragraphs.

(A)

Whether the CPIO correct in demanding

photocopyingcharges. 8. ItisobservedthattheO.M.No.A43020/01/2013RTI

dated06.02.2013,ShriSSamantahadcategoricallystated thattheRTIapplicationwasreceivedon30.01.2013.Even, the Public authority issued a Receipt No. 23515 dated 01.02.2013regardingreceiptofthepostalordergivenin thesaidRTIapplication.ItcouldbethattheCPIOwould havereceivedtheRTIapplicationon08.02.2013,butthe30 dayswouldbecountedfromthedateofreceiptoftheRTI applicationinthepublicauthorityandnotfromthedate of receipt by the CPIO. Thus, CPIO was not correct in demanding the photocopying charges. Even, the First AppellateAuthoritydidnotapplyhismindtoexamineasto whethertheinformationwasprovidedwithinthestipulated
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page3of9

periodornot andtheCPIOwascorrectindemandingthe photocopyingcharges. 9. There is no doubt that the RTIapplication dated

28.01.2013 was received in the Public Authority on 30.01.2013.ItwasnotopentotheCPIOtodemandcopying chargesafteralapseofstipulatedperiodof30days.The CPIO is therefore, directed to return the photocopying chargestotheappellantwithin2weeksofthereceiptof thisOrder. (B) Whether the names of the recommending persons areexemptedunderSection8(1)(j)oftheRTIAct. 10. InhisRTIapplicationtheappellanthadinteralia, askedforinformationonthefollowingitems: Item No. 1. List of nominations for Padma Awards 2013 having reached to UnionHomeMinistry by last dated20.11.2012ofreceivingnominations withnames ofthoserecommending nominations,authoritythrough which UnionHomeMinistry received such nominations, authority through which UnionHomeMinistry received suchnominationsanddatesonwhichsuchnominations reached to (a) recommending authorities and (b) UnionHomeMinistry. Item No. 2. Names of Search CommitteeMembers formedtorecommendPadmaAwards2013. Item No. 3. Names considered by SearchCommittee beingrecommendedforPadmaAwards2013 ItemNo.4.Namesof nomineesrecommendedby Search CommitteePadmaAwards2013 11. Whilefurnishingreply,theCPIOdidnotdisclosethe names of those recommending nominations and nor were any reasongivenbytheCPIOforsuchnondisclosure.Itwas
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page4of9

the FirstAppellate Authority, who stated that this informationcannotbedisclosed undersection8(1)(j) oftheRTIAct,2005.Therelevantparaoftheorderofthe FirstAppellateAuthorityisreproducedbelow:
The information pertaining to query no.14 which could not be provided earlier, has already been providedtotheappellantvidethisMinistrysletter No. 24/19/2012Public dated 28.2.2013. Name of recommending authority is a personal information and itcannotbeprovidedundersection8(1)(j)oftheRTI Act, 2005. Demand of Rs. 86 is correct as the applicationoftheapplicantwasreceivedbytheCPIO on 8.2.2013 and the reply was given in prescribed date.

12. The relevant portion of Section 8(1)(j) are reproducedbelow: 8.(1)NotwithstandinganythingcontainedinthisAct, there shall be no obligation to give information to any citizen, xxxxxx xxxxxx
(j) 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 Authorityissatisfiedthatthe largerpublicinterest justifiesthedisclosureofsuchinformation: Provided that the information which cannot be denied totheParliamentoraStateLegislatureshall notbedeniedtoanyperson.

13. Needless to that that the Padma Awards are the highestcivilianawardconferredfordistinguishedworkin various fields. As per the information available on the websiteofMinistryofHomeAffairs, theawardseeksto
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page5of9

recognize work of any distinction and is given for distinguished and exceptional achievements / service in all fields of activities / disciplines, such as Art, Literature and Education, Sports, Medicine, Social Work, Science and Engineering , Public Affairs, Civil Service, Trade and Industry etc. It is the usual practice is to invite recommendations every year from all State/UT Governments,Ministries/DepartmentsoftheGovernmentof India, Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan awardees and Institutes of Excellence by 1st October. Recommendations received from them and also from other sources like Ministers,ChiefMinisters/GovernorsofState,Membersof Parliament,asalsoprivateindividuals,bodiesetc.,are placedbeforethePadmaAwardCommittee. IntheProforma for Padma Awards, the recommending person has to give citation in the form of a write up in narrative form indicating distinctions / achievements obtained in the concernedfieldofactivity. 14. Thus,givingrecommendationsforPadmaAwardsisopen to the public as per the notification inviting recommendations/nominations, which is published on the website of Ministry of Home Affairs. Private individuals orbodiesetc.arenotboundtorecommendthenamesofthe personforPadmaAwardsunderanylaworstatute;theydo soontheirown.TheCommissionisoftheviewthatsuch nominations/recommendationdonotqualifytobepersonal information or confidential information the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the person recommending / nominating names of persons.
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page6of9

Moreover, the list of names of the persons nominated/recommendedisalreadyinthepublicdomain.The respondenthavenotbeenabletoestablishhowthenames of the persons making recommendations/nominations falls under the category of personal information of persons making recommendations/nominations, whereas the names of the recommended / nominated persons is already in the publicdomain. 15. In its decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00976SM dated 21.10.2009,(JaikishanAggarwalVsM.H.A.)theCommission hadobservedasunder:
FromthereplyoftheCPIOandtheorderofthefirst Appellate Authority, it is clear that the process of recommending names for the Padma Awards is highly discretionary. With the advent of the Right to Information (RTI) and increasing scrutiny of the governmentaldecisionsinitswake,itislikelythat the process of deciding these awards will be questioned by the citizens more and more in future. Therefore,theauthoritiesmuststrivetolaydown,as far as possible, transparent criteria for these nominations and make the selection process more objective.

16. With regard to conferment of Padma Awards, the Commissionhadreceivedvariousrequestsfordisclosureof normsregardinglistofnominations,selectionprocedure, eligibility criteria, and other such details concerning the selection of Padma awardees. The then Chief InformationCommissioner,wrotealetterdated31.05.2013 totheHonbleMinisterofHomeAffairs,whereinhestated asunder: ..inpursuanceoftheobjectivesoftheRTIAct, 2005, the constant endeavor of Government
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page7of9

Departments and every public authority is to take steps to provide as much information soumoto at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet, so that the public have minimum resort to use of the Act to obtaininformation. .I therefore, request you to kindly issue instructions to your Ministry to post relevant details of information regarding procedure for selection of Padma Awardees in your Departmental websiteatheearliestaswellasthedetailsofthe nominations received fro the Awards in 201213, minutes of the Selection Committee and the approval(s)ofthevariousauthorities. 17. Inviewoftheabove,theCommissionfeelsthatthe disclosure of information asked for undoubtedly has a
relationshiptopublicactivityandlargerpublicinterest

is involved in disclosure of such information, once the PadmaAwardsarefinallyawarded.TheCPIOis,therefore, directed to disclose the names of the persons making recommendation/nomination to the appellant free of cost withinthreeweeksfromthereceiptofthisorder.

18. Theappealisdisposedofwiththeabovedirections.

Sd/ SushmaSingh InformationCommissioner

AuthenticatedTrueCopy:
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page8of9

Sd/ (DCSingh) DeputySecretary&DeputyRegistrar Copyto: 1. ShriSubhashChandraAgrawal, 1775,KuchaLattushah, Dariba,ChandniChowk, Delhi110006 Ms.ShyamalaMohan,Director(A&V)&CPIO MinistryofHomeAffairs, NorthBlock, NewDelhi

2.

3. ShriBhagwanShankar,Jt.Seecy.&FirstAppellate Authority(RTI) MinistryofHomeAffairs, NorthBlock, NewDelhi

F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001648:SCAgrawalvs.MHA Page9of9

Central Information Commission

Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003770 Dated: 8.10.2013 Name of the Appellant: Name of the Public Authority: Subhash Chandra Agrawal (present for the hearing) Ministry of Home Affairs Represented by: Shyamala Mohan (Dir/ A&V, CPIO), Pandey Pradeepkr (VS, Public) Date of Hearing: 12.8.2013

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) 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) 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) 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

Authenticated True Copy:

(DC Singh) Deputy Registrar

Name & Address of Parties:

1. Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, 1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 110006 2. Public Information Officer & Director (Public), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi
3. First Appellate Authority (RTI) &

Joint Secretary (Adm), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi

Controversies on Padma awardees

News-reports indicate that industrialist Arun Firodia was awarded with Padma award earlier this year in January 2012 despite his being involved in financial irregularities and being a wilful defaulter. Similar cases of persons surrounded by controversies being honoured with Padma awards are quite common like in case of Saif Ali Khan honoured with the prestigious award in the year 2010 despite his being regularly involved in serious controversies before and after his being awarded Padmashri.

It is a matter of shame and regret that concerned Intelligence agencies clear such names without proper verification, and Union government does not take any steps to punish the guilty ones in concerned Intelligence authorities for giving clean chit to such non-deserving persons. Neither there is any system to take back Padma awards from such persons even after members of public drawing attention towards such non-deserving persons getting Padma awards. System should be made stringent to take back the prestigious award and punishing those responsible ones at Intelligence agencies which clear such names without proper investigation. It seems that such hurried clearance is done in name of formality because of very little time given for proper verification. System should be to advance last date of receiving recommendations to say 30th September by getting proper clearance for all recommendations before putting the cleared names before Awards committee meeting sometime in late December.

An RTI response revealed that Saif Ali Khan was recommended by Awards Committee in its meeting without mentioning name of member of Awards Committee having recommended his name. Enquiry should be made which member of the Awards Committee recommended the controversial name giving bad name to the prestigious civilian honour. Significantly senior government-officers and eminent personalities from different fields are members of the Awards Committee which is exempted from following norms of last date of making recommendations. Union government discontinued practice of revealing names of recommending persons through RTI response. Transparency should be restored by revealing names of recommending persons for Padma nominees and by taking back often misused power from Awards Committee to make recommendations after deadline of 20th November.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

(Guinness Record Holder & RTI Activist)

1775 Kucha Lattushah Dariba, Chandni Chowk DELHI 110006 (India) Mobile 9810033711 Fax 23254036

E-mail subhashmadhu@sify.com
Web www.subhashmadhu.com 12.08.2012 MINHA/E/2012/01035

PRSEC/E/2012/11692