Central Information Commission
Shri S. C. Agrawal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 10 August, 2009
/CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/001549, 1554, 1555,
CIC/WB/A/2009/000007, 8, 528 &
CIC/WB/C/2009/000005
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 & 19
Appellant/Complainant Shri S. C. Agrawal
Respondent Ministry of Home Affairs
Decision announced: 10 .8.2009
Facts:
These are six appeals and one complaint moved by Shri S. C. Agrawal of Dariba, Delhi on various questions concerning "Padma Awards" against the information on the subject provided by CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secretary, MHA.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2008/01549 In a request of 13.6.07, received by CPIO on 17.6.08, Shri Agrawal sought the following information:
"I request your honour to kindly inform how it was practically possible for nine members of the Award Committee set up to decide Padma Awards 2004 to pick about 100 names out of more than 1000 in a day's meeting of 26.12.2003 of just few hours. Was it not non-application of mind to decide the important aspect? (Issue of non-application of mind has been an important issue in deciding selection of candidates by Courts). Is it not to formally endorse some pre-prepared list by the Awards Committee to meet guidelines fixed by Honourable Supreme Court of India? This query is being put as fresh RTI petition because the learned Appellate Authority in point number 5 of his order dated 4.4.2008 refused to deliberate as not having been asked in that RTI petition.
I will be obliged if your honour kindly provide me reasons together with file notings about wrong mentioning of recommendatory authority in my case as 'SLLP' at serial number 14 of the Alphabetical list of names whose recommendations for Padma Awards 2004 were received in Home Ministry (copy enclosed). (My name was recommended by veteran Common cause Activist Shri H.D.Shourie along with name of my wife Smt. Madhu Agrawal.1
This is also an information sought under section 4(1) (a) of RTI Act as myself being an affected person. This query is being put as fresh RTI petition because the learned Appellate Authority in point number 2 of his order dated 6.6.08 refused to deliberate on this query as not having been asked in that RTI petition.
Kindly attach file notings relevant to all the queries made, and also on movements of this RTI petition. In case, query relates to some other public authority, kindly transfer this RTI petition to CPIO there under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. Postal Order number 64E 475159 for rupees ten is enclosed herewith towards RTI fees."
CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secretary sent Shri Agrawal a response dated 17.7.08, as follows:
'1. The copies of the file notings sought by Shri Agrawal comprises 10 pages for which Rs. 20/- @ Rs. 2/- per page is required to be paid under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. It may be noted that the Agenda papers containing complete details of the persons recommended for Padma Awards, in the form of self-speaking citations, are sent to the members of the Awards Committee at least 8-10 days in advance. The members of the Awards Committee go through these citations in advance before participating in the meeting of the Awards Committee. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the Committee finalises the awardees in a few hours of meeting. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Shri Agrawal can only exercise his right to seek information on the points required by him. It is not appropriate on his part to make unwarranted conjectures and self conclusion about the selection procedure of awardees, like non application of mind etc. RTI Act is not the right forum to give vent to his personal opinion and feelings in any matter. Under this Act, he can only seek information and any personal comments/ opinions expressed by him are not admissible under the Act.
3. As regards the information sought by Shri Agrawal regarding reasons about wrong mentioning of recommending authority in his case, it is informed that as per the actual records available in this Ministry, the recommendation in r/o Shri Agrawal was received in this Ministry as 'Self recommendation. These records do not indicate that the case of Shri Agrawal was recommended by Shri H. D. Shourie for Padma Awards 2004. However, it may not be possible to make any further comment in the matter as the papers pertaining to the year 2004 have since been weeded out."
2Not satisfied with this response, Shri Agrawal moved an appeal before Jt. Secretary Shri R. P. Nath, MHA with the following plea:
"I was shocked to note Union Home Ministry has weeded out important papers relating to Padma Awards 2004. It is absolutely wrong to say that Union Home Ministry received recommendation for my name for Padma Award as 'SELF RECOMMENDED'. A copy of letter dated 3.10.2003 from late Shri H. D. Shourie is enclosed which clearly establishes that the veteran social activist forwarded recommendations for my name along with for my wife Smt. Madhu Agrawal to Union Home Secretary."
Upon this Shri Nath had sent a detailed response to Shri Agrawal dated 19.8.08 in which while upholding the response of CPIO, Shri R.P. Nath has informed appellant Shri Agrawal, as follows:
"The position intimated to Shri Agrawal is based on the records available in this Ministry. However, it is not possible to give any further information in the matter as the papers pertaining to the year 2004 have since been weeded out1 as per the procedure and practice for retention of such papers."
Shri Agrawal has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"Since this petition is also covered by section 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, I am also entitled to know reasons for such wrong listing. I appeal that responsibility may be fixed for those not being able to produce required important record about Padma awards, and for wrong mention of recommendatory authority against my name in the list put up for consideration of Awards Committee.' FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2008/01554 In this case Shri Agrawal has sought the following information through an application of 14.1.08:
"I will be obliged if your honour kindly furnished complete details about selection of Padma awardees for the Republic Day 2004. Detail may include apart from other aspects names of members of selection-committee, list of persons whose names were put before the selection committee, duration and days when selection committee sat to scrutinize the list, approved names rejected later 1 Emphasis ours 3 by tax or intelligence authorities, names of awardees which replaced rejected names in later meetings of selection committees, and reasons for holding special and additional meetings of selection committee after the initial scheduled meetings. Please also inform about names of persons who were considered for the awards after last date of invitation of nominations, reasons for allowing such relaxation, and names, which were finally selected for Padma awards whose recommendations reached after last date.
Please also inform about complete procedures of selecting Padma and Bhushan Ratna awardees including method to nominate members of selection committees. Please specify how it is practically possible for a selection committee of about ten members to select about 100 Padma awardees out of a list of more than one thousand in its one or two meetings."
To this he received a response dated 12.2.08 from Shri Agrawal seeking to answer each of his questions, as follows:
"1. As per usual practice/ guidelines, recommendations for Padma Awards 2004 were invited form all State/ UT Governments, Ministries/ Departments of the Govt. of India, Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan awardees and selected Institutes of Excellence. Recommendations received from them and other sources (viz Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, Chief Ministers, Governors, private organisations, persons etc) were placed before the Padma Awards Committee, comprising three official members and six eminent persons nominated by the Prime Minister (List at Appendix I).
2. The list of the names of the persons who were considered by the Awards Committee for Padma Awards 2004 comprises 169 pages and can be provided to you after you make payment of Rs. 338/- (i.e. @ Rs. 2/- per page) as provided in the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The Awards Committee met on 26.12.2003 and 19.1.2004.
It is the prerogative of the Awards Committee to hold as many meetings as it considers necessary to consider the names placed before it.
4. No last date was fixed for receiving recommendations for Padma Awards 2004. However, the State/ UT Governments, Ministries/ Departments of the Govt. of India etc were requested to send their recommendations by 30th September 2003 to enable this Ministry to finalise the agenda papers for the meetings of the Awards Committee.4
5. The Awards Committee again met on 19.1.2004. The Committee also took into account recommendations in respect of some more names, which were received in this Ministry after the first meeting on 26.12.2003.
6. As per standard practice, before announcing the names for Padma awards 2004, verification of the names recommended by the Award Committee were made through premier investigating/ intelligence agencies of the Central Government to ascertain whether there was anything adverse on record against any of the person proposed to be decorated with the awards. The names of the persons who were excluded from the shortlist on the basis of the reports received from the investigating/ intelligence agencies cannot be made public in terms of the provision 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, whereby there is no obligation to give to any citizen, information which relates to personal information (in r/o any citizen) the disclosure of which was no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
7. Recommendations for Bharat Ratna are made by the Prime Minister to the President and are announced by the President's Secretariat after obtaining the approval of the President. It is the Prime Minister's prerogative to consult or obtain advice fro many one he chooses. No formal recommendations for this are necessary.
8. The agenda papers containing details of the person recommended for Padma awards in the form of self speaking citations are sent to the members of the Awards Committee at least ten days in advance. The members of the Awards Committee go through these citations in advance before participating in the meetings of the Awards Committee. During the meetings of the Awards Committee every nomination is taken into consideration by the committee and after detailed deliberations, the Committee recommends the names for the awards. For this, the Committee can hold as many meetings as it considers necessary."
However, not satisfied with this response, Shri Agrawal moved an appeal on 19.2.08 before Shri Nath, who, in his detailed response of 4.4.08, has informed Shri Agrawal, as below:
S. Point raised Findings
No.
1. Names rejected by The names of the persons, who were tax or intelligence excluded from the shortlist on the basis 5 authorities after of the reports received from the being approved by investigating intelligence agencies the selection cannot be made public in terms of the committee and provision 8 (1) (j) of the Right to names of awardees, Information act, 2005 whereby there is which replaced no obligation to give to any citizen, rejected names in information which relates to personal later meetings of information (in r/o any citizen), the selection committee. disclosure of which has no relationship to any activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
2. Reasons for holding No fixed or trenchant formula has been special and laid down for the Awards committee in additional meetings making a selection of the awardees for of selection Padma Awards. The Awards committee after the Committee is free to hold as many initial scheduled meetings as it considers necessary to meeting/s. names of finalise its recommendations. It is not persons who were under any obligation to hold only one considered for the meeting and make its awards after last recommendations. There is no issue of date of invitation of holding any special or additional nominations, meeting of the Committee. Till such reasons for allowing time the Committee makes it final such relaxation, and recommendations to the competent names which were authority, it can meet and deliberate finally selected for upon the names as many times as it Padma awards considers necessary to do so. whose recommendations reached after last date.
3. CPIO has It is the usual practice to invite contradicted himself nominations/ recommendations from by saying that the State/ UT Government, Ministries/ recommendations Departments of the Govt. of India by a were required till cut-off date. This is done with a view to 30.9.2003 and also give some kind of date to these informing that agencies by which time they are nominations were supposed to finalise their received even after recommendations and forward it to the first meeting of Central Government, so that the selection committee recommendations can be processed by on 26.12.2003. the Central Government and placed before the Awards Committee in the 6 form of an Agenda. It has not been the intention of the Government to prescribe a fixed or rigid date after which the recommendations cannot be processed. Besides the above agencies, a large number of recommendations are also received from Central/State Ministries, MPS, MLAs private individuals and bodies etc. It is the discretion of the Committee to consider/ take into account all recommendations received in the Ministry till the time of the meeting.
4. Procedure to The Awards Committee comprises nominate selection Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary and committee. Secretary to the President (official members) and four to six eminent persons nominated by7 the Prime Minister every year.
5. Please make it clear This was not asked in the application how ten committee made to the CPIO. Hence it is out of members from the purview of appeal.
different regions practically select about 100 names from more than one thousand nominations in few hours.
Nevertheless, Shri Agrawal has moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"It is clear that public authorities at Union Home Ministry have not provided correct information on my query about reasons for allowing relaxation in considering persons for Padma awards for the year 2004 after last date of invitation of nominations. I appeal that I may be informed about correct position in this regard.
Several other queries pending in my earlier appeal on the subject gain relevance in light of misleading information provided to me about the said last date for receiving nomination for the awards, which may also be kindly directed for a proper reply along with file notings.' 7 FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2008/01555 In this case appellant has moved his initial request before Shri Bhatnagar on 21.7.08, as follows:
"1. Name/s of 'Padma' awardees, if any, whose names were declared after usual date of 26th January on Republic Day mentioning the year an reasons for such delayed and unusual addition to the list of 'Padma' awardees.
2. Name/s of persons, if any, whose names were announced for 'Padma' awards but not actually decorated with award later, giving reasons mentioning the year.
3. Names of 'Padma' awardees, if any, were made to surrender 'Padma' award at behest or government mentioning reasons.
4. Names of 'Padma' awardees who surrendered 'Padma' awards at their own, mentioning reasons for their doing so.
Kindly attach file notings. If query relates to some other public authority, kindly transfer this petition to the CPIO there."
To this he received response on 20.8.08 from Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secy., as follows:
"1. A list of Padma awardees, whose names were announced after usual date (Republic Day) is at Annex-I.
2. A list of persons, whose names were announced for Padma awards, but who were not finally conferred the award, is at Annex-II. However, it is not possible to mention the reason for which these persons were not conferred the Padma Award, since in terms of the provision 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 there shall be no obligation to give to any citizen, information which relate 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.
3. None of the Padma awardees have been made to surrender the award at behest of the Government.
4. A list of the Padma awardees, who returned their awards on personal grounds, is at Annex-III. The reason cannot be mentioned on the same grounds as in (ii) above."8
Objecting that reasons for not conferring awards on persons listed and reasons mentioned by those who refused the awards Shri Agrawal has moved an appeal to Shri Nath with the following plea:
"I appeal that complete file notings and other record especially on conferring Padma Awards to DR. Bindeshwar Pathak and Shri Kishorebhai Ratilal Zaveri may kindly be provided for whom even no formal announcement was made, and their name did not appear in the list made public on the Republic Day.
Section 8 (1) (j) does not apply to those having refused or surrendered the awards because it will in no way affect their privacy. Rather exposure of reasons will exposé their annoyance/ grievance with the system which naturally they will like to highlight. Such an exposure will be in public interest to modify the system in larger national and public interest."
This appeal was turned town by Shri R. P. Nath, broadly in terms of the provisions of Sec. 8(1) (j) as causing "unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual". This has brought Shri Agrawal in his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"File notings were not provided. Also reasons for not conferring the awards to persons listed in Annex-II and also reasons mentioned by those listed in Annex-III while returning the awards are declined to be revealed allegedly under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act."
In his response to the appeal notice, in this case CPIO Shri Bhatnagar, DS, after tracing the processing of this application in a counter statement attached with his letter, has concluded as follows:
"1. The information sought by the appellant, which could be given to him, had been provided to him. It has also been informed to the appellant that the file notings and other records on conferring Padma Awards to Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak and Shri Kishorebhai Ratilal Zaveri asked for by him contain person information in respect of some persons, making public of which would cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy.
2. As regards the statement of the appellant that he has request for exposure of reasons for refusal/ surrender of awards by some persons as it would make public their annoyance/ grievance with the system which they would like 9 to highlight, it is stated that making public the reasons given by some persons while refusing or surrendering the awards may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of those individuals, as it is felt that at the time when those persons had refused to accept the awards, they may not have envisaged that their views would be made public by the Government at a later stage. The reasons expressed by them are personal in nature and its disclosure at this stage might lead to social embarrassment and amount to invasion of their privacy. If they had the intention to make public the reasons for refusal / surrender of awards, they would have themselves done that through media or other medium. The contention of the appellant that section 8 (1) (j) has been generalised liberty is not correct. It has been applied only in the cases where it is actually applicable.
3. The request of the appellant to apply section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as an alternate remedy in the matter, is not applicable in the present case, as the provision of section 8 (1) (j) has been invoked and therefore, the necessity for invoking Section 11 does not arise."
FILE NO. CIC/WB/C/2009/000005 In this case the information sought by appellant Shri Subhash Agrawal by an application of 13.10.08 is as below:
"I will be obliged if your honour kindly informs in point- wise detail about authenticity of two news reports from Hindustan Times dated 29.1.2004 and 30.1.2004 (copies enclosed) on alleged irregularities in selecting persons for Padma Awards for the year 2004. If the report/s is/are true kindly provide a copy of the said enquiry report as referred in report appeared in Hindustan Times dated 30.1.2004.
Please also enclose file notings relating to objections made by the then President Honourable Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam Ji while once returning the file relating to Padma Awards 2004 as mentioned in the report/s. Please mention violation of norms and procedures as allegedly cited by the then President and/ or his secretariat.
Is it true that some members on the inter-ministerial Padma Awards exhibited annoyance on irregularities made and rules violated in the selection procedure? If yes, kindly provide details.
Is it true that some names were added in Padma list without approval of Padma Awards Committee in its meeting on 26.12.2003 and 19.1.2004?10
Is it true that approval for some names was also sought from members of Padma Awards Committee on telephone after the meetings of the Committee on 26.12.2003 and 19.1.2004?
Is government entitled to delete approved names from the final list approved by Padma Awards Committee? If yes, kindly give reasons for deletion of names from list approved by Padma Awards Committee fro the year 2004.
In case news reports are untrue, kindly provide information action taken to make things clear before public on an issue of high nation importance involving even the President of India.
To this Shri Subhash Agrawal received a pointwise response dated 4.12.08 from Shri Bhatnagar as follows:
S. No. Information sought Reply
1. Point wise detail about The clippings of the news report enclosed
authenticity of two news by the applicant have been gone through
reports from Hindustan and it is noted that these are
Times dated 29.1.2004 unsubstantiated media reports. We have
and 30.1.2004 (copies no specific comments to offer on these
enclosed) on alleged because records do not reveal any written
irregularities in selecting reference either from the members of
persons for Padma Padma Awards Committee or from the
Awards for the year office of the President on the issues raised
2004. If the report/s under the aforesaid media reports. It is,
is/are true kindly provide therefore, not possible to provide any
a copy of the said enquiry information under the Right to Information
report as referred in Act on the conjectures made in the media
report appeared in reports, of which there are no written/ valid
Hindustan Times dated record available in the Ministry.
30.1.2004.
2. Please enclose file No objections were raised by the President
notings relating to as contended.
objections made by the
then President
Honourable Dr. A P J
Abdul Kalam Ji while
once returning the file
relating to Padma
Awards 2004 as
mentioned in the report/s.
Please mention violation
of norms and procedures
11
as allegedly cited by the
then President and/ or his
secretariat.
3. Is it true that some No record is available to this effect.
members on the inter-
ministerial Padma
Awards exhibited
annoyance on
irregularities made and
rules violated in the
selection procedure? If
yes, kindly provide
details.
4. Is it true that some As informed to the applicant on earlier
names were added in occasions also, it is the prerogative of the
Padma list without Padma Awards Committee to meet/
approval of Padma discuss names for Padma Awards on as
Awards Committee in its many occasions as it feels like. There was
meeting on 26.12.2003 no binding on the members of Padma
and 19.1.2004? Awards Committee to meet/ consult after
the meetings held on 26.12.2003 and
19.1.2004.
5. Is it true that approval for Yes.
some names was also
sought from members of
Padma Awards
Committee on telephone
after the meetings of the
Committee on
26.12.2003 and
19.1.2004?
6. Is government entitled to Yes, the final decision in the matter is delete approved names taken by the Home Minister/ Prime from the final list Minister and President keeping in view all approved by Padma relevant factors. The recommendations Awards Committee? If made by the Padma Awards Committee yes, kindly give reasons are only in the nature of recommendation for deletion of names submitted for approval of the competent from list approved by authority viz Prime Minister and President. Padma Awards Till such time the recommendations are Committee fro the year approved by the Prime Minister and the 2004. President these are in the form of recommendation only and not final names.
7. In case news reports are As informed to the applicant earlier, all untrue, kindly provide applications received for Padma Awards information action taken are placed before the Padma Awards 12 to make things clear Committee for its consideration, which, before public on an issue after detailed deliberation, recommends of high nation importance names for Padma Awards for approval of involving even the the Prime Minister and the President. For President of India. this the Awards Committee can hold as many meetings as it feels like. There is no other information to be provided.
Without moving an appeal u/s 19(1) in this matter, Shri Subhash Chand Agrawal has moved a complaint before us with the following plea:
"Overall reply of CPIO speaks about irregularities in selecting Padma awardees for the year 2004 making indirect confession of allegations leveled in media reports, which can be provide by making respondent directed to provide the petitioner complete file relating to selection of Padma Awards 2004 together with file notings and minute of meetings of Awards Committee. Any other relief deemed fit in favour of petitioner may kindly be allowed.' FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000007 In an application of 3.9.08, Shri Agrawal has sought from CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, DS the following information:
'1. Number of recommendations reached to Union Home Ministry by 30.9.2003 for Padma Awards 2004.
2. Number of recommendations reached to Union Home Ministry between 1.10.2003 and 26.12.2003 for Padma Awards 2004.
3. Number of recommendations reached to Union Home Ministry between 27.12.2003 and 19.1.2004 for Padma Awards 2004.
4. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee on 26.12.2003 whose recommendations reached by 30.9.2003.
5. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee on 26.12.2003 whose recommendations reached after 30.9.2003.
6. Number of endorsed persons on 26.12.2003 and rejected later by intelligence agencies.
7. Number of endorsed persons on 26.12.2003 and rejected later by tax authorities.
8. Number of endorsed persons on 26.12.2003 and rejected later by reasons other than intelligence or tax default, if any mentioning reasons.
139. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee on 19.1.2004 whose recommendations reached by 30.9.2003.
10. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee on 19.1.2004 whose recommendations reached between 1.10.2003 and 26.12.2003.
11. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee on 19.1.2004 whose recommendations reached between 27.12.2003 and 19.1.2004.
12. Number of endorsed persons on 19.1.2004 and rejected later by tax, intelligence or other authorities giving break up as in query numbers 6, 7 and 8 above.
13. Any other related detail available.
14. File notings.' To this Shri Subhash Agrawal received a response dated 3.10.08 which, however, failed to answer in terms of numbers but referred to various lists and names and how these were excluded from disclosure u/s 8(1) (j). Shri Agrawal has accordingly moved an appeal before Shri Nath, Jt. Secy. with the following plea:
'Hiding of my now sought information requiring just numbers rather than names of persons concerned justifies doubts about irregularities in selection of Padma Awardees for the year 2004. Honourable Mr. Justice S Ravindra Bhatt of Delhi High Court in the matter 'Bhagat Singh vs. CIC (WP (C) No. 3114/04) has held that the RTI Act being a right based enactment I akin to a welfare measures and as such should receive liberal interpretation. Other wise also information sought in present petition is in larger public interest to highlight irregularities in the system and to plug loopholes in selection of Padma awardees.' Upon this Shri R. P. Nath, Jt. Secy. has responded again on the question of lists but has further responded as follows:
"As regard the information sought by the appellant vide points 1 to 5 of his application to CPIO, it is found that a list of persons considered by the awards committee for Padma Awards 2004 was made available to him vide this Ministry's letter of even number dated March 12, 2008. There has been no practice of maintaining separate/ specific lists of person whose nominations had been received on a specific date. The appellant has already been informed that it has never been the intention of the Government to lay down any kind of a fixed/ firm date for receiving the nominations for Padma Awards. The date cited by the applicant viz 30th 14 September is a date by which the various recommending authorities are usually requested by this Ministry to send their nominations. This is done with a view to obtaining the nomination from them in time so as to prepare and finalize the citations/ agenda papers for consideration of the Awards Committee.
This does not imply that the Government does not consider the nominations received after that date. Therefore, no specific records are created in terms of receipt of nominations on a particular date etc. This position was made clear to appellant on more than one occasion.
As regards the information sought by the appellant vide points 6 to 12 of his application, it is stated that the information is not maintained in the format as desired by the appellant."
Appellant Shri Agrawal has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"I appeal that public authorities at Union Home Ministry may kindly be directed to kindly provide me information required in this petition just in form of numbers rather than names. Any other relief deemed fit in favour of appellant may kindly be allowed.' FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000008 In this case Shri Agrawal's request to CPIO, MHA dated 29.7.08 was as follows:
"1. Is it true that the Padma Awards once had to be discontinued on order of Supreme Court". If yes, please give reasons.
2. Is it true that Supreme Court permitted to re-start these Awards but with some guiding norms? If yes, please provide guidelines of Supreme Court in respect of Padma awards, and constitution of Awards Committee.
3. Is it true that guidelines required constitution of Awards Committee in constitution with Opposition Leader, and a nominee of Opposition Leader was to be there in Awards Committee? If yes, were these guidelines followed in constitution of Awards Committee.
4. /Did Supreme Court guidelines required person of eminence to be nominated in awards committee. If yes, please mention field of eminence of eminent dignitaries in Awards Committee set up for 2004 Awards.15
5. Paragraph 4 of the internal note supplied by Prime Minister's office on constitution of Awards Committee for the year 2004 mentions possibility of lobbying for Padma Awards. Please provide details of lobbying, if any reported by any member of the Awards Committee or some other for Padma Awards in any of the year, and action taken against lobbying person.
6. Please provide copy of file notings on implementation of proposal/ suggestion for first time constitution of Search Committee in the Ministry set to recommend names for Padma Awards for being put before the Awards Committee.
7. Any other related information/documents on the subject."
To this Shri Subhash Agrawal received a response dated 29.8.08, as follows:
"The constitution validity of Padma Awards was challenged in two Public Interest writ petitions filed in the High Courts of Kerala and Madhya Pradesh in the year 1992. As the substantive issue in both the writ petitions was same, these were transferred to the Supreme Court of India for adjudication. The Supreme Court delivered two separate judgments in this case one by a majority of four judges and the other by a single judge (Justice Kuldip Singh), on December 15, 1995. While the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the awards, it directed that the then guidelines regulating the awards by examined by a High Level Committee which might be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the President. In may 1996, the Prime Minister in consultation with the President constituted a Committee headed by Shri K. R. Narayanan, the then Vice President of India to look into the guidelines regulating the awards. The Committee submitted its recommendations to the Government in November 1996 and these were accepted by the Government in November 1996 and these were accepted by the Government. During the pendency of the writ petitions, no Padma award were announced by the Government in the years 1993 to 1997. The Supreme Court did not put any embargo at any stage not to announce the Padma awards. Other than the suggestion to the Government to constitute a high level review committee to examine the then guidelines regulating the awards, the Supreme Court had no suggested any specific guidelines on the subject at its own.
As stated above, the Supreme Court had delivered two separate judgments in this case one by a majority of four judges and the other by a single judge (Justice Kuldip Singh). In his judgment, Justice Kuldip Singh had suggested that a committee at national level be constituted by the Prime Minister, in consultation with the 16 President, which may include, among others, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee and the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha. However, the observations/ suggestions contained in the separate judgment of Justice Kuldip Singh were not endorsed by the majority judgment. Therefore, in accordance with the directions of the majority judgments, which had advised that the guidelines regulating the awards be examined by a High Level Committee which might be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the President, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the President had accordingly constituted a High Level Review Committee as indicated above, to go into the guidelines regulating Padma Awards.
As stated above, the Supreme Court in its judgment had not themselves laid down any specific guidelines but had directed the Government to appoint a high level review committee to examine the then guidelines relating to Padma Awards.
As already informed to the applicant that the Padma Awards Committee comprises Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary and Secretary to the President and four to six eminent persons nominated by the Prime Minister every year. A copy of the internal note and the reference from Prime Minister's Office regarding selection of members of Award Committee for Padma Awards-2004 has already been made available to the applicant. These papers reveal only names of the person nominated by the Prime Minster for the Awards Committee for Padma Awards 2004. These papers do not reveal the field of eminence of these persons.
In terms of the record available with this Ministry, there is no information on record about lobbying for Padma awards.
The file notings regarding setting up of a Search Committee on Padma Awards, comprises 8 pages, for which Rs. 16/- @ Rs. 2/- per page may be remitted under the RTI Act, 2005 to enable this Ministry to send a copy of the same."
Objecting to the information provided against point Nos. 4 & 7 Shri Agrawal moved an appeal before Jt. Secretary Shri R. P. Nath, who, in his response of 16.9.08, who has informed appellant Shri Agrawal that a copy of his appeal was being forwarded to the Prime Minister's Office for appropriate action. Subsequently CPIO Shri Bhatnagar in his letter of 27.11.08 informed appellant Shri Agrawal as follows:
17"The Prime Minister's Office has now informed that they have no information other than what has already been provided."
Shri Agrawal has then moved a second appeal before us with the following plea:
"I appeal that PMO and/ or Union Ministry may kindly be directed to reveal field of eminence of members of Awards Committee 2004, if necessary by invoking section 11 or some other relevant procedure under RTI Act by taking the query with either the then Prime Minister or memb4ers of Awards Committee 2004. Any other relief as deemed fit in favour of appellant may kindly be allowed."
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000528 In this case Shri Agrawal, through his application of 27.1.09, has sought the following information from CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secy., MHA:
'1. Number of recommendation reached to Union Home Ministry by 30.9.2008.
2. Number of recommendations reached to Union Home Ministry between 1.10.2008 and 20.11.2008.
3. Number of recommendations reached to Union Home Ministry after 20.11.2008.
4. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee whose recommendations reached between 30.9.2008.
5. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee whose recommendations reached between 30.9.2008 and 20.11.2008.
6. Number of persons endorsed by Awards Committee whose recommendations reached after 20.11.2008.
7. Was any recommendation which were not recommended by either of President, Vice President, Prime Minister or Union Home Minister but reached to Union Home Ministry after 20.11.2008 put before Awards Committee?
8. If yes, reasons for deviation from decision earlier taken in this regard together with file notings.
9. Names of members of Awards Committee including field of eminence (As required under guidelines of KR Narayanan Committee) of members other than government officials.
10. Days and time duration on which Awards Committee met to finalize nominations.
11. Minutes of meetings of meetings held by Awards Committee.18
12. Number of endorsed persons which were later rejected by tax, intelligence or other bodies after their names were endorsed by the Awards Committee.
13. Any other related detail available.
14. File notings.
To this Shri Subhash Agrawal received a detailed response dated 20.2.2009 from Shri Bhatnagar, in which apart from providing numbers in response to some questions, Shri Bhatnagar has also sought to respond to Q. Nos. 7 to 12.
In this matter also appellant Shri Subhash Agrawal was more interested in the numbers, which he has reiterated in his appeal dated 26.2.09 before Shri Nath, Jt. Secretary. To this Shri Nath in his response of 8.4.09 has responded as follows:
S. No. Points raised Findings
1. CPIO vide reply dated It has already been informed to the
20.2.2009 to query 1 and appellant by the CPIO that no specific
2 replied that no separate records were created in terms of receipt of records were maintained. nominations on a particular date.
How is it possible when
there must be some
receipt date of any
communication received
by any government
department?
2. CPIO avoided direct reply As informed by the CPIO, in terms of the
to query number (7). scheme of the awards, the members of the
Padma Awards Committee have the
discretion to recommend suitable names
suo moto during the meetings.
Accordingly, some names were
recommended by the members of the
Awards Committee during the meetings.
3. In reference to query (9), The non- official members of the Padma since eminent Awards Committee were nominated by the personalities are Prime Minister. The nomination of nominated in Awards members of Padma Awards Committee, Committee, field of as conveyed by the Prime Minister's eminence of four eminent Office, indicated only names of the personalities listed in persons and did not indicate their field of 19 reply must be made eminence.
public.
4. CPIO avoided mention of The meetings was held on December 19, exact dates and timing of 20 and 22, 2008. The CPIO has already meetings for three days mentioned that the Awards Committee by Awards Committee. held full day meetings. However, no record has been kept about the exact time duration of the meetings.
5. CPIO could not furnish It has already been informed by the CPIO minutes of meetings by that no specific record of the deliberations Award Committee. of the meeting of the Padma Awards Committee is maintained. Only the final recommendations of the Awards Committee are submitted for the approval of the Prime Minister and the President.
6. CPIO had wrongly While exception u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act claimed exemption u/s 8 to query 12 may not be claimed for giving (1) (j) of RTI Act for query the number, it has to be seen whether the 12 number (not names) number is available in the records. I have of endorsed persons gone th4rough the record and find that the which were later rejected Padma Awards Committee had taken into by tax, intelligence or consideration the reports of the agencies other bodies after their while finalizing its recommendations for names were endorsed by Padma Awards, 2009. The Committee the Awards Committee. I has only indicated the names of the never asked to reveal person recommended for Padma Awards identify or names of 2009. Since the Committee has not rejected person. indicated the names or number of persons Disclosing number of rejected on account of adverse reports, it rejected persons will be is not possible to find out and inform the no way cause applicant about the number of such unwarranted invasion of persons.
privacy of the individual.
207. With media reports pouring toward alleged irregularities, declining sought information by the CPIO on one pretext or other leaves no doubt that CPIO has wrongly and deliberately tried to hide the required information in my RTI petition. I appeal that the CPIO may kindly be directed to reply to each of my query properly especially in reference to query number 12.
In this case Shri Agrawal's prayer before us in second appeal is as below:
"I appeal that the Honorable Central Information Commission may kindly summon complete records relating to selection of Padma awardees for the year 2009 to decide if replies to my various queries by Union Home Ministry are proper or not. Also, authorities at Union Home Ministry may kindly be directed to produce documents which authorities' members of Awards Committee to sue-moto recommend names even after last date of receiving recommendations which in this case was 20.10.2008. Any other relief deemed in favour of appellant may kindly be allowed.' The appeal was heard on 6.8.09. The following are present:
Appellant Sh. Subhash Agrawal Shri Prashant Bhushan Shri Pranav Sachdeva Respondents Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, D.S. Shri Arun Sobti, S.O. CPIO Shri Bhatnagar presented a letter from Shri R. P. Nath, Jt. Secretary seeking exemption from attendance in the hearing. This was accepted and has been placed on record.21
Learned Counsel for appellant Shri Prashant Bhushan asked the grounds for weeding out papers so soon. This, in his view, could arouse suspicion as to the full process of presenting "Padma Awards". In response CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar clarified that not all records are weeded out as per the policy followed by MHA. These are only letters of recommendation which are weeded out after the exercise of selection of awardees is complete.
The theme running through most responses to the applications considered during this hearing is either refusal of information u/s 8(1) (j), or the record having been destroyed. This is the basis on which the information sought refused disclosing reasons given by awardees for refusing the awards, reasons for not awarding individuals recommended and also for not sharing file noting, as according to respondents Shri Bhatnagar all this noting is so interlaced with personal information that disclosure would amount to invasion of privacy. The arguments of learned Counsel for appellant in these matters has been that the award of "Padma Awards" is a national public activity of wide interest to India's citizens and, therefore, the information sought does not qualify for exemption u/s 8(1)(j) and requires to be retained for a longer period.
On File No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000005 appellant Shri S. C. Agrawal has specifically asked for file noting referring to the President's response to the recommendations, which according to the press reports cited had been adverse. Appellant Shri Agrawal had sought similar information from the President's Secretariat through an application of 30.10.2008 in response to which CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai of the President's Secretariat had refused the information, informing Shri Agrawal as follows:
"It is informed that the President had addressed a communication classified as Secret to the Prime Minister on 22.1.2004 on the subject of Padma Awards. The desired information is hereby rejected u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 22 A copy of the response of President's Secretariat was submitted by appellant Shri Subhash Agrawal in the hearing and has been taken on record. We also examined the concerned file together with a copy of the letter of the President of India of 22.1.04 to the Prime Minister, which is indeed marked "Secret". This note does not in fact carry any objection to the decision to confer the awards On the question raised in file Nos. CIC/WB/A/2009/000007 and CIC/WB/A/2009/000528 concerning numbers Shri Arun Sobti, S.O., MHA submitted that the records sought by appellant are not maintained date wise and hence cannot be provided.
DECISION NOTICE As will be seen in the present cases before us that despite the information sought having been exhaustive the respondent public authority has been at pains to respond to each question raised and issue agitated. The Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly CPIO Shri Bhatnagar and appellate authority Shri Nath both deserve a word of commendation for a painstaking effort.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/C/2009/000005 In this case the matter hinges upon the question of whether as reported in the press, then President of India HE Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam had raised objections to the norms and procedures followed by the Committee. The answer has been given stating that no objections were raised. Upon examination of the original document of 22.1.04 which was the note sent by the President of India to the Prime Minister, there were indeed no objections raised, but advised only that certain conditions be ensured to ensure no adverse public reaction to the conferring of the awards. Appellant Shri Agrawal has sought a copy of this noting. The question arises as to whether this information is fiduciary as claimed by the CPIO, President's Secretariat or is privileged under Article 74 of the 23 Constitution of India. In C. Ramesh vs. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension in File No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00121 announced on
8.8.2006, we have found as follows:
23. The second question that needs to be determined is as to whether the Government or for that matter a public authority can deny or refuse to give an information to a citizen on the ground that the information so demanded is covered by Article 74 (2), 78 or Article 361 of the Constitution of India and as such it cannot be furnished. In this case the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have argued that the Right to Information Act does not and cannot override the Constitutional provisions. On the other hand the Appellant has submitted that there is no repugnancy between the Right to Information conferred by the Act and the constitutional provisions taken recourse to by the CPIO and by the Appellate Authority for denying the requested information. The Appellant has submitted that none of these Articles anywhere state that the information/correspondence between the President and the Prime Minister should not be disclosed. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bommai's case, Article 361 is the manifestation of the theory prevalent in English law that 'King can do no wrong' and, for that reason, his actions are beyond the process of the court. Any and every action taken by the President is really the action of his ministers and subordinates. It is they, who have to answer for, defend and justify any and every action taken by them in the name of the President, if such action is questioned in a Court of law. The President cannot be called upon to answer for or justify the action.
It is for the Council of Ministers to do so. Where the President acts through his subordinates, it is for the subordinate to defend the action.
24. Before deciding the issue of applicability of Article 74(2) to the instant case, it is pertinent to refer again to the provisions of Article 74(2), which clearly stipulates that the court shall not inquire into whether any advice was at all tendered and even if there was any such advice, the court shall not inquire as to what advice was tendered. In this connection the following observations of Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh in S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918) regarding the scope and ambit of Article 74(2) are quite relevant:
"The object of Article 74(2) was not to exclude any material or documents from the scrutiny of the Courts but to provide that an order issued by or in the name of the President could not be questioned on the ground that it was either contrary to the advice tendered by the Ministers or was issued without obtaining any advice from the Ministers. Its object was only to make the question whether the President had followed the 24 advice of the Ministers or acted contrary thereto, non- justiciable." Justice Ahmadi also agreed that Article 74(2) is no bar to the production of all the material on which the ministerial advice was based. This issue has been further clarified in a recent case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Rameshwar Prasad and Ors.vs. Union of India and Anr.AIR2006SC980): "A plain reading of Article 74(2) stating that the question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any Court, may seem to convey that the Court is debarred from inquiring into such advice but Bommai has held that Article74 (2) is not a bar against scrutiny of the material."
25. In S.P Gupta's case the question arose as to whether the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of India on consultation form part of the advice. In this case the two Chief Justices were consulted on "full and identical facts"
and their views were obtained and it is after considering those views that the Council of Ministers tendered its advice to the President. The views expressed by the two Chief Justices preceded the formation of the advice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that merely because their views are referred to in the advice that is ultimately tendered by the Council of Ministers, they do not necessarily become part of the advice. The Court further ruled that what is protected against disclosure under clause (2) of Article 74 is only the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers2. The reasons that have weighed with the Council of Ministers in giving the advice would certainly form part of the advice. But the material on which the reasoning of the Council of Ministers is based and advice given cannot be said to form part of the advice. The Hon'ble Apex Court illustrating the point with the example of a judgment clearly laid down the law as follows:
"The judgment would undoubtedly be based on the evidence led before the Court and it would refer to such evidence and discuss it but on that account can it be said that the evidence forms part of the judgment? The judgment would consist only of the decision and the reasons in support of it and the evidence on which the reasoning and the decision are based would not be part of the judgment. Similarly the material on which the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers is based cannot be said to be part of the advice and the correspondence exchanged between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi and the Chief Justice of India which constituted the material forming the basis of the decision of the Central Government must accordingly be held to be 2 Emphasis added 25 outside the exclusionary rule enacted in clause (2) of Article
74."
26. The appellant has in this connection referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Jain vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 1769) wherein the Apex Court has held the claim of the State Minister and the State Secretary for immunity of state documents from disclosure as unsustainable. But in this case, the Hon'ble Court did not find it necessary to disclose the contents to the petitioner or to his counsel. It may be mentioned that in this case the immunity was claimed by the State under the Evidence Act as well as under the constitutional provisions and the Hon'ble Court refused to grant a general immunity so as to cover that no document in any particular class or one of the categories of Cabinet papers or decisions or contents thereof should be ordered to be produced.
27. It would not be out of context to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC 493, wherein the Hon'ble Court held that the documents which embody the minutes of the meetings of the Council of Ministers and indicate the advice given by the Council cannot be produced in a court of law unless their production is permitted by the head of the department. It was not for the court to go into the question as to whether the public interest will be really injured or not by its disclosure. But in State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 884) the following observations of Hon'ble Justice Mathew are worth quoting:
"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, through not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. To cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. "
28. The case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 SCC Supp. 87, decided by a seven-Judge Constitution Bench is generally considered as having broken new ground and having added a fresh, liberal dimension to the need for increased disclosure in matters relating to public affairs. In that case, the consensus that emerged amongst the Judges was that in regard to the functioning 26 of government, disclosure of information must be the ordinary rule while secrecy must be an exception, justifiable only when it is demanded by the requirement of public interest.
29. In Dinesh Trivedi vs. Union of India (1997) 4 SCC 306 the Court reiterated the limitations of the Right to Information Act. In this context, the following observations of the Supreme Court are noteworthy.
"In modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government which, having been elected by them seeks to formulate sound policies of governance aimed at their welfare. However, like all other rights, even this right has recognized limitations; it is, by no means, absolute. "
30. In Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 782), the production of the documents was resisted by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Union of India on the ground that the documents were not relevant and in any event most of them were 'privileged' being part of the documents leading to the tendering of the advice by the Cabinet to the President, as contemplated by Article 74(2) of the Constitution. Rejecting the claim for production of the documents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"It is settled law and it was so clearly recognised in Raj Narain's case (supra) that there may be classes of documents which public interest requires should not be disclosed, no matter what the individual documents in those classes may contain or in other words, the law recognises that there may be classes of documents which in the public interest should be immune from disclosure. There is one such class of documents which for years has been recognised by the law as entitled in the public interest to be protected against disclosure and that class consists of documents that it is really necessary for the proper functioning of the public service to withhold from disclosure. The documents falling within this class are granted immunity from disclosure not because of their contents but because of the class to which they belong. This class includes cabinet minutes, minutes of discussions between heads of departments, high level inter-departmental communications and dispatches from ambassadors abroad "Cabinet papers are, therefore, protected from disclosure not by reason of their contents but because of the class to which they belong. It appears to us that Cabinet papers also include papers brought into existence for the purpose of preparing submission to the Cabinet."27
31. From the above decisions of the Apex Court, it may be inferred that Article 74(2), 78 and 361 of the Constitution of India do not per se entitle the public authorities to claim "privilege" from disclosure. Now since the Right to Information Act has come into force, whatever immunity from disclosure could have been claimed by the State under the law, stands virtually extinguished, except on the ground explicitly mentioned under Section 8 and in some cases under Section 11 of the RTI Act.3 In the present case, there has been no appeal u/s 19(1). But since it deals with an issue on which we have decided after detailed examination we have decided to dispose of it under Sec 18 (1) (e). In light of our above Decision it is clear that the only provision of exemption sought is Sec 8 (1) (e). But equally clearly the contents of the information sought are not of a fiduciary nature, and the issue commented upon is long since complete and over. Moreover, the protection of Art 74 of the Constitution is only to the advice tendered by the Cabinet to the President of India, not necessarily vice versa. This complaint is therefore allowed. A copy of the impugned note of 22.1.'04 will be provided to complainant Shri Subhash Agrawal free of charge within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice There will be no costs FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000008 In this case what appellant Shri Agrawal is seeking is with regard to the exercise of Prime Minister's discretion. Clearly this is not information that is expected to be recorded, and this has already been clarified to appellant Shri Subhash Agrawal by the Prime Minister's Office. Under the circumstances, the appeal in this case has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
FILE NOs. CIC/WB/A/2009/000007 & CIC/WB/A/2009/000528 We find that in these files, whereas some numbers have been provided in the latter case, even if the information is not maintained in the form in which it had been sought by appellant Shri Agrawal, it is clear that the questions relate to numbers and not to information on facts. Such numbers, as the CPIO has 3 Emphasis added 28 gathered, are required to be provided in both cases. DS Shri Bhatnagar has reported in his written submission of August 7, 2009 on the disclosure of 'numbers' to appellant as follows "In terms of extant practice, only the final recommendations of the Committee are maintained as record. It may be recalled that the CIC was kind enough to explain to the applicant / appellant that it is not necessary to maintain formal record or the 'minutes' of the deliberations of various meetings. CIC had cited the procedure of selection of the Information Commissioners in this regard where no formal record is maintained of the 'discussions' held to select the Information Commissioners.
It may thus be seen that all relevant information asked by the applicant / appellant, as could be provided to him under the various provisions of the RTI Act, and as was available with this Ministry, has already been provided to him."
Both these appeals are, therefore, remanded to Shri R.P. Nath, Jt. Secretary and First Appellate Authority to re-examine in light of the records held by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the subject and provide the numbers sought to appellant Shri Agrawal to the extent that these are held. Where no such number exists, appellant should be duly informed. On this basis these two appeals are allowed in part. There will be no costs.
Now we come to the issue of rules for weeding out followed by Ministry of Home Affairs in regard to the recommendations received for "Padma Awards". This has a bearing on the information provided in File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01549. We have received a letter of August 7, 2009 from CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secretary (A&P), as follows:
"An extract of the extant Record Retention Schedule governing the files dealing with Padma Awards is enclosed."
S.No Subject Retent Remarks
ion
period
1. Padma Awards * The term "Civilian Awards"
a) Approval of the B- may be substituted by the
Prime Minister and keep term "Padma Awards", as
the President to the Public Section is dealing only
names for Padma with Padma Awards amongst
29
Award. the Civilian awards of the
b) Verification of B- Govt. of India.
character & keep ** On account of very large
antecedents of volume of papers received in
probable Padma the Section, it would not be
Awardees. possible to retain such files
c) Policy matters of B- beyond one year. Even
Padma Awards keep otherwise, once the awards
d) Calling of C-1 ** have been announced or the
nominations for ceremony has been held,
Padma Awards there is little utility of such
e) Calling of bio-data C-1 ** papers. In any case, the
of Padma awardees Agenda papers for the
for brochure. meeting and the
f) Preparation of C-1 ** Commemorative Brochure of
citations in r/o each year are retained as B-
recommendations keep.
received for Padma
Awards
g) Arrangements for C-1 **
Padma Awards
investiture
ceremonies
h) Constitution of B-
Padma Awards keep
Committee
i) Constitution of C-1
Search Committee for
Padma Awards
Clearly then the retention of the recommendations not being provided by the rules, it will have to be accepted that the destruction of the record sought is within the framework of the law. Therefore this also disposes of the question of why others recommended were not considered as per question no. 2 in File No CIC/WB/A/2008/01555. As intimated by appellate authority Shri Nath File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01549 and emphasised by us in the quote, these records "have since been weeded out." There remains then only the question of disclosure of reasons for rejection by those awarded, a matter considered at Q 4 in File No CIC/WB/A/2008/01555. In this matter we must agree with respondent CPIO Shri Bhatnagar, that the matter having been supplied by a third party, who is free to disclose the information if he chooses, the public authority, in respecting the 30 objectors' privacy u/s 8 (1) (j) is obliged to keep this information private. These two appeal are therefore dismissed Reserved in the hearing this Decision is announced on this day of August 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Appellant Shri Subhash Chand Agrawal has requested that a copy of this Decision Notice in these seven cases be also endorsed to HE the President of India and Chief Justice. Copies of this Decision will, therefore, also be sent to CPIOs, President's Secretariat and Registry, Supreme Court of India for the information of H.E. the President of India and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10.8.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 10.8.2009 31