Shocking! Padma Awards 2015 were given without completing “the process”, reveals RTI
An RTI application to the Union Home Ministry was rejected by its CPIO, stating the process is not yet completed. So, then, how were the Padma awards were given? 
 
Contrary to the claims and commitments by Narendra Modi that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government will follow transparency in governance, here is a shocking revelation. According to a reply received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the BJP government gave away the coveted Padma Awards for 2015 even without completing the due scrutiny of the nominees. The previous Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, however, used to put the selection process on the website after the Republic Day, after a hue and cry from activists.
 
Delhi-based RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, who has been consistently monitoring the selection of Padma Awards over the past few years, through the transparency law, did the same for the 2015 Awards too. He filed an RTI application requesting information about the selection process of those who received Padma awards in 2015 from the Union Home Ministry. However, he was shocked, when the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Home Ministry, replied stating that the “process is not yet completed” and hence the office was unable to provide information. If the selection process is not complete, then on what basis the awards were given away?
 
Agrawal is extremely disturbed as this is the first time that information has been denied, with the BJP rule. Earlier, the selection process used to be put on the website. He says, “It seems that present Union government is bent upon preventing transparency in its working as the Union Ministry for Home Affairs (MHA) shockingly and surprisingly deviated from its earlier practice to provide information on selection process of Padma awards just after announcement of Padma awards on eve of Republic Day (25th January) every year. The CPIO at MHA through a letter dated 27 February 2015 declined information on an RTI petition, which I filed on 27 January 2015.”
 
Interestingly, a similar RTI request, which Agrawal had made in 2014, received response from the MHA. “Besides,” the RTI crusader says, “following a communication from Central Information Commission, details of selection process was put on MHA website like it presently exists for Padma awards 2014.”
 
Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri (also Padmashree) are the second, third and fourth highest civilian award in India. Padma Awards are conferred in recognition of the awardees distinguished contribution in various spheres of activity including the arts, education, industry, literature, science, sports, medicine, social service and public affairs. The selection criteria for the Padma awards, however, has been heavily criticised as many highly deserving people have been left out in order to favour certain individuals. The Padma Award are given to nominees only after receiving clearances from intelligence agencies and regulators, like Intelligence Bureau (IB), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Central Excise Intelligence (CEI), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). 
 
With the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner (apart from three more Information Commissioner) pending for last more than six months, work at Central Information Commission (CIC) has come to almost at a standstill for petitions relating to most of public authorities including most important ones handled by Chief Information Commissioner. There is no chance of the appointments in near future and a sword is hanging for dismissal/ quitting of outsourced employees at CIC. Instead of a slow killing of RTI Act, the Union government can save funds by altogether repealing RTI Act rather than providing ‘non-information’ on RTI petitions like the one quoted above. Even the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) appears to have lost its reputation for being amongst the best public authority to respond to RTI petitions.
 
In his reply to Agrawal’s RTI application, the CPIO at MHA on 27 February 2015 replied, “Please refer to your application-dated 27.01.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 received by the CPIO on 5.2.2015, seeking information about Padma Awards 2015. The process for Padma Awards 2015 has not yet been completed. Hence, no information can be provided at this stage.” 
 
So, is the BJP government hoodwinking citizen by selecting Padma Awardees as per its whims and fancies? This is extremely disturbing.
 
Agrawal has gone in first appeal. Here’s the information sought by him…
  1. List of nominations reaching MHA by stipulated last date with names of those recommending nominations, authority through which MHA received nominations and dates on which nominations reached to (a) recommending authorities and (b) MHA mentioning also last date of receiving nominations at MHA 
  2. Names of Search-Committee-Members' 
  3. Names considered by 'Search-Committee' 
  4. Names recommended by the 'Search-Committee' 
  5. Names endorsed by Awards-Committee out of those recommended by 'Search-Committee' 
  6. Days and time-duration on which 'Search-Committee' met to finalise nominations with minutes of meetings 
  7. Names of recommendations reached to MHA after last date of receiving nominations 
  8. Names of persons endorsed by Awards-Committee whose recommendations reached by stipulated last date 
  9. Names of persons endorsed by Awards-Committee whose recommendations reached after stipulated last date 
  10. Names of persons recommended by either of President, Vice President, Prime-Minister or Union Home Minister after stipulated last date 
  11. Names of persons recommended by Awards-Committee itself mentioning name/s of Award-
    Committee Member’s recommending such name/s 
  12.  Names of persons endorsed by Awards-Committee which were recommended by either of President, Vice President, Prime-Minister or Union Home Minister or Awards-Committee itself after stipulated last date 
  13. Complete information on any recommendation which were not recommended by either of President, Vice President, Prime-Minister or Union Home Minister but reached MHA after stipulated last date put before Awards-Committee 
  14. Names of members of Awards-Committee mentioning 'Field-of-Eminence' 
  15. Date on which set of recommendations were dispatched from MHA to Awards-Committee-
    Members for their study/perusal before meeting of Awards-Committee 
  16. Days and time-duration on which Awards-Committee met to finalise nominations with minutes of meetings 
  17. Names/ number of endorsed persons which were later rejected by tax, intelligence or other bodies after their names were endorsed by the Awards-Committee mentioning also name/s of authority rejecting such names 
  18. Complete details on telephonic-confirmation sought from members of Awards-Committee on any recommendation for Padma-award 
  19. List of names endorsed by Awards-Committee but not included in final list of awardees with complete information on not including such endorsed names in final list 
  20. Names of Padma-awardees refusing to accept Padma-awards-2015 
  21. Name of individual sending maximum number of recommendations 
  22. Number of recommendations received from each of states/ministries 
  23. Names of Padma-awardees in year 2015who were previously honoured with Padma-awards 
  24. Complete information on objection received on name of some Padma-awardee-2015 
  25. Calendar (dates) followed for different stages in selection/announcement of awards including date/s of receiving consent of probable awardees 
  26. Complete information on briefing Union Home Secretary by officers prior to meeting of Awards-committee mentioning also names and designations of officers present in briefing, and minutes of meeting/file-noting of such meeting for briefing Union Home Secretary 
  27. File-notings on movement of RTI-petition Shockingly and surprisingly learned CPIO vide reply No. 24/62/2015-Public dated 27.02.2015 declined information on the plea that process for Padma-awards 2015 is not yet been completed. 
Rues Agrawal, “Learned CPIO did not take trouble to go through files of RTI responses on Padma-awards relating to earlier years when all such similar queries were responded on filing RTI petition immediately after announcement of Padma awards on eve of Republic Day.”
 
Agrawal has appealed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to direct the CPIO to provide point-wise response to each of the queries together with sought and related documents but now to be provided free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act. He has also appealed that all those details which were put on MHA website for Padma awards 2014, may also kindly be directed to be placed on MHA website in respect of Padma awards 2015. 
 
Let us wait and watch.
 
 

List of the Padma Awardees for 2015

 
This year, the government conferred the Padma Awards to 104 persons. It includes nine Padma Vibhushan, 20 Padma Bhushan and 75 Padma Shri Awardees.
 
Padma Vibhushan
1 LK Advani- Public Affairs- Gujarat
2 Amitabh Bachchan- Art- Maharashtra
3 Prakash Singh Badal- Public Affairs- Punjab
4 Dr D Veerendra Heggade- Social Work- Karnataka
5 Mohammad Yusuf Khan alias Dilip Kumar- Art- Maharashtra
6 Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya- Others- Uttar Pradesh
7 Prof Malur Ramaswamy Srinivasan- Science and Engineering- Tamil Nadu
8 Kottayan K. Venugopal- Public Affairs- Delhi
9 Karim Al Hussaini Aga Khan (Foreigner)- Trade and Industry- France/UK
 
Padma Bhushan
1 Jahnu Barua- Art- Assam
2 Dr Vijay Bhatkar- Science and Engineering- Maharashtra
3 Shri Swapan Dasgupta- Literature and Education- Delhi
4 Swami Satyamitranand Giri- Others- Uttar Pradesh
5 N Gopalaswami- Civil Service- Tamil Nadu
6 Dr Subhash C Kashyap- Public Affairs- Delhi
7 Dr (Pandit) Gokulotsavji Maharaj- Art- Madhya Pradesh
8 Dr Ambrish Mithal- Medicine - Delhi
9 Sudha Ragunathan- Art- Tamil Nadu
10 Shri Harish Salve- Public Affairs- Delhi
11 Dr Ashok Seth- Medicine- Delhi
12 Rajat Sharma- Literature and Education- Delhi
13 Satpal- Sports- Delhi
14 Shivakumara Swami- Others- Karnataka
15 Dr Kharag Singh Valdiya- Science and Engineering- Karnataka
16 Prof Manjul Bhargava (NRI/PIO)- Science and Engineering- USA
17 David Frawley (Vamadeva) (Foreigner)- Others- USA
18 Bill Gates (Foreigner)- Social Work- USA
19 Melinda Gates (Foreigner)- Social Work- USA
20 Saichiro Misumi (Foreigner)- Others- Japan
 

Padma Shri
1 Dr Manjula Anagani- Medicine- Telangana
2 S Arunan- Science and Engineering- Karnataka
3 Kanyakumari Avasarala- Art- Tamil Nadu
4 Dr Bettina Sharada Baumer- Literature and Education- Jammu and Kashmir
5 Naresh Bedi- Art- Delhi
6 Ashok Bhagat- Social Work- Jharkhand
7 Sanjay Leela Bhansali- Art- Maharashtra
8 Dr Lakshmi Nandan Bora- Literature and Education- Assam
9 Dr Gyan Chaturvedi- Literature and Education- Madhya Pradesh
10 Prof (Dr) Yogesh Kumar Chawla- Medicine- Chandigarh
11 Jayakumari Chikkala- Medicine- Delhi
12 Bibek Debroy- Literature and Education- Delhi
13 Dr Sarungbam Bimola Kumari Devi- Medicine- Manipur
14 Dr Ashok Gulati- Public Affairs- Delhi
15 Dr Randeep Guleria- Medicine- Delhi
16 Dr KP Haridas- Medicine- Kerala
17 Rahul Jain- Art- Delhi
18 Ravindra Jain- Art- Maharashtra
19 Dr Sunil Jogi- Literature and Education- Delhi
20 Prasoon Joshi- Art- Maharashtra
21 Dr Prafulla Kar- Art- Odisha
22 Saba Anjum- Sports- Chhattisgarh
23 Ushakiran Khan- Literature and Education- Bihar
24 Dr Rajesh Kotecha- Medicine- Rajasthan
25 Prof Alka Kriplani- Medicine Delhi
26 Dr Harsh Kumar- Medicine- Delhi
27 Narayana Purushothama Mallaya- Literature & Education- Kerala
28 Lambert Mascarenhas- Literature and Education- Goa
29 Dr Janak Palta McGilligan- Social Work- Madhya Pradesh
30 Veerendra Raj Mehta- Social Work- Delhi
31 Tarak Mehta- Art- Gujarat
32 Neil Herbert Nongkynrih (Art), Meghalaya
33 Chewang Norphel- Others- Jammu and Kashmir
34 TV Mohandas Pai- Trade and Industry- Karnataka
35 Dr Tejas Patel- Medicine- Gujarat
36 Jadav Molai Peyang- Others- Assam
37 Bimla Poddar- Others- Uttar Pradesh
38 Dr N Prabhakar- Science and Engg- Delhi
39 Dr Prahalada- Science and Engg- Maharashtra
40 Dr Narendra Prasad- Medicine- Bihar
41 Ram Bahadur Rai- Literature and Education- Delhi
42 Mithali Raj- Sports- Telangana
43 PV Rajaraman- Civil Service- Tamil Nadu
44 Prof JS Rajput- Literature and Education- Uttar Pradesh
45 Kota Srinivasa Rao- Art- Andhra Pradesh
46 Prof Bimal Roy- Literature and Education- West Bengal
47 Shekhar Sen- Art- Maharashtra
48- Gunvant Shah- Literature and Education- Gujarat
49 Brahmdev Sharma- Literature and Education- Delhi
50 Manu Sharma- Literature and Education- Uttar Pradesh
51 Prof Yog Raj Sharma- Medicine- Delhi
52 Vasant Shastri- Science and Engg- Karnataka
53 SK Shivkumar- Science and Engg- Karnataka
54 PV Sindhu- Sports- Telangana
55 Sardara Singh- Sports- Haryana
56 Arunima Sinha-Sports- Uttar Pradesh
57 Mahesh Raj Soni- Art- Rajasthan
58 Dr Nikhil Tandon- Medicine- Delhi
59 H Thegtse Rinpoche- Social Work- Arunachal Pradesh
60 Dr Hargovind Laxmishanker Trivedi- Medicine- Gujarat
61 Huang Baosheng- Others- China
62 Prof Jacques Blamont- Science and Engg- France
63 Late Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin- Others- Maharashtra (Posthumous)
64 Jean-Claude Carriere- Literature and Education - France
65 Dr Nandrajan 'Raj' Chetty- Literature and Education- France
66 George L Hart- Others- USA
67 Jagat Guru Amrta Suryananda Maha Raja- Others- Portugal
68 Late Meetha Lal Mehta- Social Work- Rajasthan (Posthumous)
69 Tripti Mukherjee- Art- USA
70 Dr Dattatreyudu Nori- Medicine- USA
71 Dr Raghu Rama Pillarisetti (Medicine), USA
72 Dr Saumitra Rawat- Medicine- UK
73 Prof Annette Schmiedchen (Literature and Education), Germany
74 Late Pran Kumar Sharma alias Pran- Art- Delhi (Posthumous)
75 Late R Vasudevan- Civil Service- Tamil Nadu (Posthumous)

 
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Hemant Sharma

4 years ago

Good article . Highlights the need of improving systems and processes .
Am sure that because of such exposures people would stop shortchanging our people and the people who really deserve to be rewarded.

Babubhai Vaghela

4 years ago

Suo Moto Empowered Judges siting at HCs and SC, including CJIs, see Nothing Wrong with such Political Scandals. And, my Sweet Lords expect Common Man address them as Honourable Judges.

Hemant Sharma

4 years ago

.

365 days later, Govt still unable to find information commissioners; activist demands answers

When it comes to appointments of the crucial post of Central Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, the Modi government, despite having followed all procedures of calling for applicants and shortlisting, has not been able to identify any one

 

Is Rocket Science required to appoint the Chief Central Information Commissioner and the three Information Commissioners that the government had advertised for? Today, it is exactly one year since applications were invited from the public to apply for these posts, but yet it is a suspicious silence from the Prime Minister’s Office:
 
Look at this timeline
 
On 25 February 2014 (exactly a year back), the government advertised for the posts of information commissioners
 
On 16 July 2014, the government again advertised for Posts of ICs in CIC
 
On 23 August 2014, CIC Rajiv Mathur retired and two months later, on 24 October 2014, the newly formed BJP government advertised the post of Central Chief Information Commissioner
 
On 16 January 2015, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) has invited the Search Committee members comprising the cabinet secretary, Rashtrapati Bhavan (chairman); Additional Principal Secretary to PM; Secretary, DoPT; Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; Secretary, Dept of Expenditure and Professor Ram Chand, National Centre for Agricultural Economics & Policy. They were scheduled to meet at the cabinet secretariat of Rashtrapati Bhavan on 16th January. On the same day, another meeting to draw a panel for information commissioners will also take place. 
 
Thereafter, the candidates for the post of Information Commissioners and the CIC have been shortlisted but no action has been taken.
 
Irked by this inordinate delay, which has resulted in piling up of pending cases, about 38,000 as against 22,300 on 25th February last year (figures procured under RTI Act) leading Delhi based RTI activist, Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd), has now filed an RTI application. Cmde Batra, who has been tenaciously following up this issue, has sought details of the follow up after the shortlisting of the candidates from the Cabinet Secretariat of Rashtrapati Bhavan. He has sought inspection of files under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
 
His RTI application has demanded the following information:
 
1. Background As per information received through RTI, Hon’ble Prime Minister has accorded approval for constitution of ‘Search Committee’ headed by Cabinet Secretary for recommending / short listing panel(s) of names to the ‘Selection Committee’ for appointments of Chief Information Commissioner and 03 Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission (CIC)’. The first meeting of the “Search Committee’ was to be held on 16.01.2015 and the 2nd meeting on 06.02.2015.
 
2. In the above background /context, please provide me following information. 
a) Please intimate the procedure /criterion applied /being applied for short listing panel(s) of names for the ‘Selection Committee’, for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and 03 Information Commissioners in CIC.
 
b) Please provide me the “Proceedings / Minutes of the Meetings” of the Search Committee held on 16.01.2015 and all the meetings held thereafter. Also provide me copy of final recommendations sent to PMO /DoPT for consideration of the ‘Selection Committee’. 
 
c) Please provide List of file/files with reference number(s) on which the ‘Search Committee’ is processing / has processed the case of appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and appointment of 03 Information Commissioners.
 
d) I would also like to inspect all the file/ files /records concerned with the above mentioned appointments of Chief IC and ICs in CIC. At that stage, I will take photocopies (duly certified) of the documents and notings in the file(s) as required by me. Please intimate the date and time for the inspection.
 
 
Applicants for 3 Information Commissioners’ posts: 553
Applicants for Central Chief Information Commissioner’s posts: 203
 

Lists of candidates are available in Public domain on Moneylife two stories below:

553 applicants for three posts of Information Commissioner!
 

Who will be India’s next Central Chief Information Commissioner under RTI?

 
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

SuchindranathAiyerS

4 years ago

The time is fast coming when there will not be a single un tainted person in Government service. Why doesn't the Government go outside the orbit of courtiers and camp followers? They will say they tried by calling for applications. But no decent person will apply for a Government post in the entrenched culture of reservations, bribes and favouritism. It requires serious head hunting:

manoharlalsharma

4 years ago

Introduction of R.T.I. is by DEFAULT or by MISTAKE , to get reacquired information is even more TOUGH to a COMMON-MAN.

Mumbai Metro, ‘substantially’ funded, controlled by govt, does not come under RTI?

Despite investing Rs133 crore and providing viability funding gap of Rs500 crore, the Maharashtra government owns just 26% stake in Mumbai Metro. Yet the company refuses to answer queries under the RTI Act

 

Mumbai Metro One Pvt Ltd (MMOPL), jointly funded by the Maharashtra government, Reliance Infrastructure Ltd and Veolia, refused to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act. According to Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner, who had filed a complaint before the State Information Commission, against the company, since the government has substantially funded the Mumbai Metro project, the company should answer queries asked under the RTI Act.
 
Mr Gandhi's complaint, which was heard on Monday before the SIC is now adjourned to 4th March because the lawyers for MMOPL claimed that they were not prepared (for the hearing).
 
Here is what Mr Gandhi says about the case and its hearings...
 
Despite spending over a decade in RTI including four years as a Commissioner, I must admit the hearing before the State Information Commission on Monday took me by surprise! 
 
I had filed a RTI application with the Public Information Officer (PIO) of MMOPL asking for some simple information. I received a reply by an authorised signatory suggesting that I should ask Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for information. 
 
I realised that MMOPL refused to accept its obligations as a public authority and was thus disregarding RTI. Out of eight directors (on MMOPL) three are MMRDA employees and MMRDA has a veto right in certain matters, hence it certainly has control over MMOPL. 
 
Besides over Rs500 crore has been provided in the garb of 'viability gap funding' and Rs133 crores (by the state government) to get an equity of 26% in MMOPL. Against this, Reliance Infrastructure has invested Rs353 crores for 69% stake and Veolia has put in Rs26 crore for a 5% stake. 
 
The Government's funding of over Rs633 crore is not considered substantial funding! I therefore filed a complaint with the State Commission, which first fixed a hearing on 27th January and subsequently shifted it to 23rd February.
 
During the hearing on Monday, the lawyer for MMOPL started by saying he wanted an adjournment since they were not prepared! 
 
I protested strongly that enough time had been given and there was no reason for an adjournment. The MMOPL lawyer was mentioning no ground for seeking an adjournment. 
 
When the Commission asked MMOPL why they had not been prepared, they said they are able to get an adjournment in court very easily and could not understand my protest. One of them also said that they were prepared for the hearing on 27th January! 
 
I then urged the two-member bench of the commission (Mr Ratnakar Gaikwad and Mr Ajit Kumar Jain) to note that this was wasting public money and resource. I suggested that if the adjournment was given a cost of Rs5,000 should be imposed on them since the poorest man pays for the cost of the Commission.  The Commission has fixed the next date of hearing on 4 March at 11am.
 
According to Section 2 (h) of RTI Act, a public authority is defined as...
 
"public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-
(a) by or under the Constitution ;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any--
i. body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
ii. non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
 
Section 2 (h) (i) also mentions three independent criteria for being a public authority: It may be either owned by the appropriate government, or controlled by it, or substantially financed by it.
 
1) A body is generally considered to be 'owned' by any entity when it has over 50% stake in its equity. In the instant case, it is known that the government does not have over 50% equity in MMOPL.
2) A body is controlled by government. Whereas regulatory control may not be considered as 'control', I would like to point out the two ways in which government is exercising control.
3) A body is substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government.  
 
Mr Gandhi said, "Out of eight directors in MMOPL, three are public servants who are expected to control the working on behalf of the government. They hold their positions by virtue of their being public servants, and represent the government."
 
MMRDA directors have a veto right in 'Specified Matters' as mentioned at para 7.3.5.2 in the shareholders agreement. It appears that the presence of senior Government Servants on the board may check or ensure that decisions taken in MMOPL are in consonance with the Government's avowed objectives. Therefore, the presence of a fair degree of Government control on the decisions of MMOPL cannot be ruled out. A right to veto is certainly a power to restrain.  Parliament did not use the adjective 'complete' before the word control. Hence it is sufficient if it can be shown that the body is 'controlled', Mr Gandhi added.
 
Mr Gandhi, the former Central Information Commissioner, said, "I would also submit that the government has provided land and a monopoly to MMOPL whose monetary value has not been accounted. If this were to be represented in monetary terms, it would be clear that further financial advantage has been provided to MMOPL. If after such conclusive evidence it is allowed to escape accountability to the citizens, this would result in Indian citizens giving away money and resources to private gain, without even being allowed to exercise their fundamental Right to Information." 
 
Earlier in February 2012, Mr Gandhi, the then then Central Information Commissioner, had ruled that Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), a public-private partnership (PPP) was a public authority. While giving the judgement the then Central Information Commissioner had said, "By their very nature, public-private partnerships (PPPs) stipulate certain contributions from the government, which may be monetary as well as non-monetary—to which values can be attributed. Moreover, PPPs envisage a certain degree of government control in their functioning so that the decisions taken are in accordance with the objectives for which the partnership was set up. Given the above, PPPs would come within the ambit of 'public authorities' as defined in the RTI Act thereby enabling citizens to know or obtain information about them." (Read: RTI Judgement Series: A body substantially funded, controlled by govt is a public authority)
 
 

 

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)