Moneylife: Pune: Thursday, March 20, 2025.
Virender Singh, a celebrated
Deaflympics athlete, professional wrestler, and Padma Shri awardee who filed a
Right to Information (RTI) application seeking details of the selection process
for the prestigious Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award was denied information
by the central public information officer (CPIO) of the ministry of youth
affairs & sports (YAS) but was supported by the central information
commissioner (CIC) who has compelled the public authority to provide
information immediately.
Mr Singh also sought information on the eligibility and past recognition of Deaflympic and Paralympic athletes, as well as nomination statistics for these athletes over the past five years. He also asked for a copy of the standard operating procedure (SOP) formulated by the Ministry of YAS, along with the names of all the selection committee members for the National Awards 2023. He sought the minutes of meetings held to shortlist the candidate, the total number of applications received, the list of awardees with their respective scores, and details of rejected applications along with stated reasons.
In a second appeal order dated 18 March 2025, CIC Vinod Kumar Tiwari has ordered Raj K Gupta, CPIO-cum-under secretary of the ministry of YAS to furnish statistical data regarding the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award as requested by Mr Singh, along with how many applications for the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award 2023 were received; the list of awardees with their respective scores and; details of rejected applications along with the reasons cited by the selection committee.
CIC Tiwari was also shocked to note that the CPIO had wrongfully stated that the required information was already on the website. Stating that is “misleading”, he has directed in his order that, “if such information is not maintained or unavailable in official records, the Commission has advised the Respondent Public Authority under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to begin maintaining these records and, if feasible, publish them on their website.”
CIC Tiwari reiterated in his order that, “proactively sharing this information would enhance transparency in the selection process for prestigious awards while also reducing the administrative burden caused by repeated RTI applications. Furthermore, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has been instructed to forward a copy of this order to the competent authority for appropriate action.”
He has further slammed the CPIO for incorrectly denying information under section 11 of the RTI Act, which pertains to seeking third-party consent rather than grounds for denial. He advised the CPIO that he can deny information only under the exemption clauses under section 8 of the RTI Act.
Mr Singh, through his lawyer, appropriately argued during the second appeal hearing that:
“Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award, is a top prestigious award for any sportsman.
“The selection process of such prestigious award needs to (be) transparent and public authority, who has entrusted with this responsibility, must act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for the public good and in the public interest.
“Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes for the Prestigious Award.
“Accordingly, Singh used RTI as a tool, as it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Disclosing the sought information is essential to the large community of deaflymic athletes and the public at large, as it will bring more transparency and accountability in these award processes. The applicant himself is a renowned deafalympian.”
CIC Tiwari agreed with his argument and observed that “The commission is inclined to accept the stand taken by the appellant that the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award, is a top prestigious award for any sportsperson which motivates several other aspirants.
“The selection process of such a prestigious award needs transparency and public authority, who is entrusted with this responsibility, must act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for the public good and in public interest. Withholding such information unnecessarily creates doubts which is not a healthy approach to promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and process for grant of such a prestigious award.”
Mr Singh’s legal representative had also put forth some court orders to strengthen his request. They were:
* The Supreme Court in the case titled PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRAR & ANR v. ONKAR DATTATRAY KALMANKAR & ANR. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025 held that Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be D-In the present case, the public interest is all in favour of disclosure of sought information. As it increases transparency and accountability in such sports awarding process, public awareness of such award process promotes the human rights of thousands of deaflypmic who shouldn't be discriminated against, and the information sought through RTI application doesn't cause personal privacy invasion.
* In the landmark judgment titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vis. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, the Supreme Court observed that transparency and accountability are important parts of the system and it doesn't undermine the independence of the authority.
“Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that factors that weigh in favour of public interest are specific to each unique case. Where the disclosure of documents casts a light on the adequate performance of public authorities and any mala fide actions or wrongdoings by public figures, facilitating the broader goal of accountability, a public interest exists in favour of disclosure.
“Information concerning the accountability of officials, public expenditure, the performance of public duties, the handling of complaints, the existence of any wrongdoing by a public official, inefficiency in public administration and unfairness in public administration all possess public interest value, their relative strength to be determined on a case by case basis; Where the disclosure of information would promote the aims and objectives of the RTI Act, there exists a public interest in disclosing such information.”
Mr Singh also sought information on the eligibility and past recognition of Deaflympic and Paralympic athletes, as well as nomination statistics for these athletes over the past five years. He also asked for a copy of the standard operating procedure (SOP) formulated by the Ministry of YAS, along with the names of all the selection committee members for the National Awards 2023. He sought the minutes of meetings held to shortlist the candidate, the total number of applications received, the list of awardees with their respective scores, and details of rejected applications along with stated reasons.
In a second appeal order dated 18 March 2025, CIC Vinod Kumar Tiwari has ordered Raj K Gupta, CPIO-cum-under secretary of the ministry of YAS to furnish statistical data regarding the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award as requested by Mr Singh, along with how many applications for the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award 2023 were received; the list of awardees with their respective scores and; details of rejected applications along with the reasons cited by the selection committee.
CIC Tiwari was also shocked to note that the CPIO had wrongfully stated that the required information was already on the website. Stating that is “misleading”, he has directed in his order that, “if such information is not maintained or unavailable in official records, the Commission has advised the Respondent Public Authority under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to begin maintaining these records and, if feasible, publish them on their website.”
CIC Tiwari reiterated in his order that, “proactively sharing this information would enhance transparency in the selection process for prestigious awards while also reducing the administrative burden caused by repeated RTI applications. Furthermore, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has been instructed to forward a copy of this order to the competent authority for appropriate action.”
He has further slammed the CPIO for incorrectly denying information under section 11 of the RTI Act, which pertains to seeking third-party consent rather than grounds for denial. He advised the CPIO that he can deny information only under the exemption clauses under section 8 of the RTI Act.
Mr Singh, through his lawyer, appropriately argued during the second appeal hearing that:
“Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award, is a top prestigious award for any sportsman.
“The selection process of such prestigious award needs to (be) transparent and public authority, who has entrusted with this responsibility, must act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for the public good and in the public interest.
“Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes for the Prestigious Award.
“Accordingly, Singh used RTI as a tool, as it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Disclosing the sought information is essential to the large community of deaflymic athletes and the public at large, as it will bring more transparency and accountability in these award processes. The applicant himself is a renowned deafalympian.”
CIC Tiwari agreed with his argument and observed that “The commission is inclined to accept the stand taken by the appellant that the Major Dhyan Chand Khel Ratna Award, is a top prestigious award for any sportsperson which motivates several other aspirants.
“The selection process of such a prestigious award needs transparency and public authority, who is entrusted with this responsibility, must act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for the public good and in public interest. Withholding such information unnecessarily creates doubts which is not a healthy approach to promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and process for grant of such a prestigious award.”
Mr Singh’s legal representative had also put forth some court orders to strengthen his request. They were:
* The Supreme Court in the case titled PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRAR & ANR v. ONKAR DATTATRAY KALMANKAR & ANR. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025 held that Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be D-In the present case, the public interest is all in favour of disclosure of sought information. As it increases transparency and accountability in such sports awarding process, public awareness of such award process promotes the human rights of thousands of deaflypmic who shouldn't be discriminated against, and the information sought through RTI application doesn't cause personal privacy invasion.
* In the landmark judgment titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vis. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, the Supreme Court observed that transparency and accountability are important parts of the system and it doesn't undermine the independence of the authority.
“Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that factors that weigh in favour of public interest are specific to each unique case. Where the disclosure of documents casts a light on the adequate performance of public authorities and any mala fide actions or wrongdoings by public figures, facilitating the broader goal of accountability, a public interest exists in favour of disclosure.
“Information concerning the accountability of officials, public expenditure, the performance of public duties, the handling of complaints, the existence of any wrongdoing by a public official, inefficiency in public administration and unfairness in public administration all possess public interest value, their relative strength to be determined on a case by case basis; Where the disclosure of information would promote the aims and objectives of the RTI Act, there exists a public interest in disclosing such information.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
