New Delhi, Oct 4 : The Ministry of Women and Child Development has told the Central Information Commission that there are no fixed minimum qualifying marks, scores, rankings or selection thresholds for the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar, with selections based on a “holistic assessment” of eligible nominations.
The disclosure came in response to an RTI application seeking details of the selection process, including evaluation criteria, scoring methodology, rankings, selection thresholds and the number of nominations received, shortlisted and selected during 2023, 2024 and 2025.
The ministry told the Central Information Commission (CIC) that “no fixed minimum qualifying marks, scores, rankings or selection thresholds are prescribed or maintained for Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar (PMRBP)” and that selection is undertaken through a “holistic assessment of eligible nominations based on the overall merits and achievements of candidates in a competitive environment”.
The applicant had also sought aggregate data on the total number of nominations received, shortlisted and finally selected during the three years.
The ministry initially said the information on total nominations was not disclosed as it formed part of confidential records.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh, however, observed that aggregate figures were distinguishable from personal information identifying individual nominees.
The CIC directed the ministry to furnish the “statistical data of nominations received, shortlisted and finally selected” for PMRBP to the applicant within four weeks of receiving the order.
It also directed the ministry to provide the specific status of the applicant’s nominations and the exact URL and complete path to the publicly available award guidelines.
The applicant had sought details concerning four nominations submitted for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 award cycles, including their stage-wise status and evaluation records.
The CIC, however, did not order disclosure of comparative evaluation records where these could reveal personal information of other nominees.
The Commission noted that while information concerning third parties may attract exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, “a general assertion that the records contain information relating to other candidates is insufficient to establish, in every case, that no reasonably severable portion exists”.
It also examined the ministry’s reliance on the fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e), observing that merely holding information confidentially does not automatically establish a fiduciary relationship.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay, the CIC noted that “the mere custody of evaluated records does not, by itself, establish the requisite fiduciary relationship”.
The Commission also found the ministry’s response on the status of the four nominations insufficiently clear, observing that “a vague reply has been provided by the central public information officer (CPIO)”.
It directed that exempt information be redacted under Section 10 of the RTI Act before the ordered disclosure.
