Central Information Commission
Shri S. C. Agarwal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha) on 29 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01160 dated 3.7.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri S. C. Agarwal
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Facts:
By an application of 14.1.2008 Shri Subhash Chander Agarwal applied to CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs seeking the following information:
"I will be obliged if your honour kindly furnishes 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 by tax or intelligence authorities, names of awardees which replaced rejected names in later meetings of selection-committee, 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 that were finally selected for Padma awards whose recommendations reached after last date.
Please also inform about complete procedures of selected Padma and Bharat Ratna awardees including method of nominate members of selection-committee. 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. Is it true that selection- committee fulfills formality of endorsing a pre-approved government list in some hours only for meeting guidelines fixed by the Apex Court? Kindly attach file notings. In case query relates to some other public- authority, please transfer this RTI petition there. Postal-order number 59E 154650 for rupees 10 is enclosed towards RTI fees."
To this he received a response on 14.2.08, as follows:
11. "As per usual practice/ guidelines, recommendations for Padma awards-2004 were invited from 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 organizations, persons etc.) were placed before the Padma Awards Committee, comprising three official members and six eminent persons nominated by the Prime Minister
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 19.01.2004. 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 Government, Ministries/ Departments of the Govt. of India etc. were requested to send their recommendations by 30th September, 2003 to enable this Ministry of finalize the agenda papers for the meetings of the Awards Committee.
5. The Awards Committee again met on 19.01.2004. 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 Awards 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 persons 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 Right to Information 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 has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
27. 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 from any one he chooses. Nor formal recommendations for this are necessary.
8. The agenda papers containing 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 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 Award 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."
Appended to this was a list of Members of the Padma Awards Committee 2004 as below:
"1. Shri Kamal Pande, Cabinet Secretary.
2. Shri N. Gopalaswami, Home Secretary.
3. Shri P. M. Nair, Secretary to the President.
4. Dr. Anil Kakodkar.
5. Dr. Maheep Singh.
6. Shri Baleshwar Agrawal.
7. Smt. Prabha Sankaranarayanan.
8. Dr. Sitakant Mahapatra.
9. Dr. M. Rahman."
Not satisfied with this response, appellant made his first appeal to Shri R.P. Nath Jt. Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, as follows:
"As regards CPIO's reply in Para (6), revealing names rejected by tax or intelligence authorities after being approved by the selection- committee is in public interest because the disclosure will expose wrong selections. CPIO has contradicted himself by saying that recommendations were required till 30.9.2003 and also informing that nominations were received even after first meeting of selection- committee on 26.12.2003, meaning high-level of irregularity of awarding favorites with Padma awards through additional meeting of selection-committee, this perhaps being the reason for not disclosing late entries for nominations. Kindly also direct the CPIO to reveal procedure to nominate selection-committee. Please also 3 make it clear how ten committee- members from different regions practically select about 100 names from more than one thousand nominations in few hours. Kindly also intimate name of payee in pay-order of Rs. 338 to get 169 pages listing total recommendations. Please arrange reply to any other remaining query in my petition, if any together with file-notings on my RTI petition."
Shri Nath, in a reasoned response, ordered as follows:
S. Point raised Findings
No.
1. Names rejected by The names of the persons, who
tax or intelligence were excluded from the shortlist
authorities after on the basis of the reports
being approved by received from the investigating/
the selection- intelligence agencies cannot be
committee and made public in terms of the
names of awardees, provision 8 (1) (j) of the Right to
which replaced Information Act 2005, whereby
rejected names in there is no obligation to give to
later meetings of any citizen, information which
selection committee. relates to personal information (in
r/o any citizen), the 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
special and been laid down for the Awards
additional meetings Committee in making a selection
of selection- of the awardees for Padma
committee after the Awards. The Awards Committee
initial scheduled is free to hold as many meetings
meeting/s. Names of as it considers necessary to
persons who were finalize its recommendations. It is
considered for the not under any obligation to hold
awards after last only one meeting and make its
date of invitation of recommendations. There is no
nominations reasons issue of holding any 'special' or
for allowing such 'additional' meeting of the
relaxation, and committee. Till such time the
names which were Committee makes its final
finally selected for recommendations to the
Padma awards competent authority, it can meet
whose and deliberate upon the names as
4
recommendations many times as it considers
reached after last necessary do so.
date.
3. CPIO has It is the usual practice to invite
contradicted himself nominations/recommendations
by saying that from the State / UT Governments,
recommendations Minister / Deptts. of the Govt. of
were required till India by a cut-off date. This is
30.9.2003 and also done with a view to give some
informing that kind of date to these agencies by
nominations were which time they are supposed to
received even after finalize their recommendations
first meeting of and forward it to the Central
selection committee Government, so that the
on 26.12.2003. recommendations can be
processed by the Central
Government and placed before
the Awards Committee in the 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
Ministers, 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
nominate selection comprises Cabinet Secretary,
committee. Home Secretary, Home Secretary
and Secretary to the President
(official members) and four to six
eminent persons nominated by
the Prime Minister every year.
5. Please make it clear This was not asked in the
how ten committee- application made to the CPIO.
members from Hence it is out of the purview of
5
different regions appeal.
practically select
about 100 names
from more than one
thousand
nominations in few
courses.
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"1. Names (and number) of awardees endorsed by Awards Committee in its meeting dated 26.12.2003 which were later rejected by tax or intelligence authorities.
2. Names (and number) of awardees endorsed in second meeting of 19.01.2004 mentioning dates when recommendations for their names reached the Ministry.
3. Names (and number) of awardees for whom recommendations reached the Ministry after last date of 30.9.2003 and reasons for such relaxation. Please specify names (and number) of awardees finally selected for whom nominations reached after (1) 30.9.2003 (2) 26.12.2003.
4. Copies of file movement and/ or minutes of meeting held to appoint members of Awards Committee for the year 2004.
5. Copies of minutes of meeting of Awards Committee held on 26.12.2003 and 19.01.2004, clarifying if it was not 'non application of mind' to select 'unanimously' about 100 names out of a list of 1039 in a meeting of few hours by nine members of the Awards Committee from different fields and regions.
6. Copies of file notings on movement of my RTI petition."
We then received from CPIO Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secretary, a response to our appeal notice attaching with an OM of 25.7.08, a comprehensive counter statement to the appeal before us in which the responses to the points raised in the second appeal are as below:
"1&2.It is not considered desirable to divulge the names of the person recommended for Padma awards by the Awards Committee 6 in its meetings held on 26.12.2003 and19.01.2004 and also the names which were struck out on the basis of adverse report received from the investigating/ intelligence agencies, as it may directly/ indirectly reveal the names adversely reported upon by the investigating/ intelligence agencies and it may not be appropriate to make such names 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 has no relationship to any activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. It has already been again and again informed to Shri Agrawal that the names adversely reported by the investigating/ intelligence agencies cannot be revealed as it may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of these person.
No fixed or rigid last date for receiving the nominations for Padma Awards has been provided for in the guidelines regulating Padam Awards. The last date for receiving the nominations for Padma awards varies every year depending upon the decision of the Awards Committee etc. No record is, therefore, generated indicating the date of receiving of nominations for Padma Awards considered by the Awards Committee.
The requisite papers have since been obtained from the Prime Minister's Office and are enclosed at Annexure-V. Under the RTI Act 2005, the appellant can only seek information, and not force us to give our views about the selection procedure followed by the Awards Committee. It has already been informed to the appellant that the Agenda papers containing 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 meetings of the Awards Committee. However, he continues to ask repeatedly about the same matter when giving any opinion on the matter falls outside the scope of the Act. This Ministry cannot be guided by his conclusions in this regard and can only furnish the information as is available and admissible under the RTI Act.
The paper desired by the appellant is enclosed at Annexure-VI."
This counter statement has brought an equally comprehensive rejoinder from appellant Shri Subhash Chander Agarwal dated 30.7.08, in which he has 7 sought to rebut each of the points in the counter statement pertaining to this appeal posing the following question:
"File notings for first appeal stage are not supplied. Copy of guidelines regulating Padma awards (As mentioned in counter statement filed by the Ministry) which should have been placed before all concerned in selection process including before the then Honourable Prime Minister while his selecting members of the Awards Committee, was also not supplied. Did the then Honorable Prime Minister made selection for the Awards Committee without consulting guidelines formulated for the purpose?"
The appeal was heard on 25.8.08. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Subhash Chander Agarwal Shri Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, assisting appellant Shri Mayank Mishra, Advocate, assisting appellant Respondents Shri R. P. Nath, JS(Admn) & AA, MHA Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, DS(A&P) & CPIO, MHA Shri K. K. Majumdar, US (RTI & Public) Shri Arun Sobti, S.O. (Public) In pleading for allowing his appeal, learned Counsel for appellant Shri Prashant Bhushan has submitted that even where invasion of privacy had been pleaded, such information cannot be deemed 'unwarranted' because of the public interest override in application of exemption u/sec. 8(1) sub-section (j). He has also submitted that file noting, which has been sought in the original application, have not been provided.
In response Shri R.P.Nath, J.S.(Admn) has submitted that the disclosure of names of persons who were excluded from the short list on the basis of reports received from investigating or intelligence agencies could blemish the character of such individual, if the nature of the reports against them, held by intelligence and the tax collection agencies were disclosed, which is indeed personal information, subject for disclosure to 8(1)(j).8
CPIO Shri Bhatnagar further dwelt on this point but clarified that selection is made purely on the basis of merit and in doing so, the status of the concerned candidate has to be taken into account, with the result that information for verification of character has to be sought from the tax and intelligence agencies. If such names are disclosed, even if the grounds on which the names have not been recommended are not disclosed, it would amount to blemishing the character of such individuals.
In responding to these arguments Shri Prashant Bhushan have quoted extensively from the decisions of Shri Kuldip Singh J. and Shri Ahmadi J. in Balaji Raghavan vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 77 regarding processing of Padma Awards and the recommendations thereon, upon which CPIO Shri Bhatnagar clarified that High Level Committee was constituted on the basis of this decision and the processing of Padma Awards revised to bring it in line with the Supreme Court decision The issue before us is simple: whether names considered by the Padma Awards Committee for Padma Awards can be disclosed. It has to be borne in mind that the nominees for Padma Awards are generally not aware of such a nomination. Details of when their nomination was sent, and further their rejection after initial short listing are matters which have so far been held in confidence. Such information would also constitute the bulk of files notings on the subject, their disclosure or refusal thereof will then determine whether there is any purpose in applying he principle of severability . Therefore, a decision on the above issue is germane.
DECISION NOTICE Much of the information that is collected for the purpose of the awards is personal in nature within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even the learned Counsel Shri Prashant Bhushan 9 appearing to assist the respondent has not disputed the nature of the information and the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. What he has contended is that it is in the larger public interest that the information should be disclosed. The Department's view, on the other hand, is that the disclosure of an adverse report from the Investigating/Intelligence Agencies is not in the public interest and it will amount to invasion of privacy of those individuals whose personal information would have remained 'personal', but for their names being not considered for grant of the Award The apex Court's decision in Balaji Raghavan vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 770 is a unanimous decision of a Constitution Bench of Five Judges .The Court held that conferring national awards of Bharat Ratna or other Padma awards does not amount to conferring "titles" which is prohibited under Article 18 of the Constitution. Chief Justice Ahmadi, as well as Justice Kuldip Singh in his concurring judgment, emphasise the need for a high level committee to look into the existing guidelines in this matter, but do not speak of disclosure of the deliberations of the Committee.
The question in the present case therefore would be whether any disclosure may cast a stigma or aspersion on a person who after consideration of his name might have been dropped and this would be covered under the exemption laid down under section 8(1)(j) The Right to Information Act, 2005 undoubtedly aims at transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. But, at the same time, it recognizes preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information.
Keeping this objective of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in mind, it will definitely not be proper if the personal information concerning certain personalities who were recommended but not considered for grant of the Award for any reason, is disclosed and made public. It will surely be at the least a social embarrassment and may amount to invasion of privacy. The Commission is not 10 convinced that details concerning them be made public and become a subject matter of public scrutiny.
The Commission, therefore, agrees with the views of the public authority that the disclosure of information, which may be an adverse report from Investigating/Intelligence Agencies, even if this is not spelt out in detail and which is otherwise 'personal' and covered under Section 8(1)(j), be not disclosed unless there are compelling larger public interest justifying such disclosure in a particular case.
The appeal petition is accordingly rejected and the exemption claimed by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) is upheld. Reserved in the hearing, in order to study the legal implications of the case made out before us, the above decision is announced in open chamber on this twenty-ninth day of August 2008.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 29 8.2008 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 29.8.2008 11