Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00976-SM dated 31-01-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 21 October 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jaikishan Aggarwal
S/o Late Shri Madal Lal Aggarwal,
R/o 393, Kucha Baulaqi Begum,
Dariba Kalan, Delhi - 110 006.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was present along with Shri Rajiv Aggarwal.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri R.P.Nath, JS(A), MHA,
(ii) Shri S.K.Bhatnagar, DS/CPIO,MHA
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated January 31,
2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information concerning the Padma
Awards. The CPIO replied on February 18, 2008 and provided detailed
information/clarification though not strictly query-wise. Not satisfied with
the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant moved the first Appellate Authority on
March 3, 2008. That authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated April
15, 2008. He too provided some additional information/clarification against
some of the queries. The Appellant has come in second appeal alleging that
he has still not been given clear and complete information on some of his
queries.
3. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
submissions. The Appellant specifically submitted that the information
provided against his query number 2 and 6 was quite unclear. The Appellant
had sought to know the number of phases in which the selection process for
recommending nominations for the Padma Awards had been completed for
the awards to be announced on the Republic Day, 2008. The CPIO, in his
reply, had merely stated that the Committee could meet as many times as it
felt necessary but did not exactly state the number of times this Committee
CIC/WB/A/2008/00976-SM
had actually met. The Appellant had also sought to know about the exact
phase of the selection process in which his name had been rejected. The
CPIO had explained in some detail the modalities of the selection process
and the role and responsibility of the Committee and had said that the
Committee had not recommended the Appellant. During the hearing, the
Respondent submitted that since no minutes of the meetings of the said
Committee were maintained except for the recommendations made by it, it
was not possible for the CPIO to identify any particular meeting in which
such a decision would have been taken.
4. From the reply of the CPIO and the order of the first 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 governmental decisions in its wake, it is
likely that the process of deciding these awards will be questioned by the
citizens more and more in future. Therefore, the authorities must strive to
lay down, as far as possible, transparent criteria for these nominations and
make the selection process more objective. As far as the present case is
concerned, we direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant within 10 working
days from the receipt of this order informing him the exact number of times
the said Committee had met for finalising the nominations for the year
2008.
5. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed
off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2008/00976-SM