Reference Article: The Hindu
UPSC Relevance:
– GS Paper II: Governance, Transparency, Institutional Frameworks
– GS Paper III: Science and Technology, Achievements and Policy
– Essay Paper: Ethics, Meritocracy, and Political Neutrality in Scientific Recognition
The Government of India recently announced the recipients of the second edition of the Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar (RVP) — a set of national-level science awards instituted to honour excellence and lifetime contributions in scientific research and technological innovation. The awards, which replaced and consolidated earlier departmental recognitions, mark the government’s effort to bring greater coherence and national stature to India’s science honours framework. However, questions surrounding transparency, autonomy, and political influence have emerged, raising concerns about the delicate balance between recognition and regulation in the Indian scientific ecosystem.
Structure and Categories of the Awards
The RVP 2025 includes 24 individual awardees and one team, distributed across four categories:
- Vigyan Ratna: For lifetime distinguished contributions in science and technology.
- Vigyan Shri: For recent distinguished scientific achievements.
- Vigyan Yuva – Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award: For scientists under the age of 45.
- Vigyan Team Award: For collective technological or research contributions.
Though the framework allows for up to 56 awards annually, this year saw fewer than the 33 recipients of 2024, possibly reflecting stricter scrutiny and tighter selection criteria.
Procedural and Governance Concerns
The 2025 announcement faced delays of several months, reportedly due to extended vetting and evaluation. While greater scrutiny may improve merit-based selection, it also invites doubts about procedural transparency. In the first edition (2024), controversies erupted when scientists who were initially informed of their selection were later dropped from the final list. This inconsistency prompted multiple prominent scientists to write to the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA) demanding clarity and accountability in the selection process.
The Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar Committee (RVPC) — chaired by the PSA and comprising Secretaries of science ministries and representatives of scientific academies — recommends names to the Minister of Science and Technology. However, it remains unclear whether the Minister has discretionary authority to alter or reject the committee’s recommendations. This ambiguity has raised apprehensions of political interference, particularly given that critics of government policies are alleged to have been excluded in earlier cycles.
Comparison with Earlier Awards
The RVP was established in 2022 after the Ministry of Home Affairs and leading science departments decided to merge several existing awards, including the prestigious Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar (SSB) and departmental recognitions, to streamline the system and enhance their national prestige. Unlike the SSB, which included a monetary component, the RVP carries no cash prize, aligning with the Padma Awards’ symbolic prestige model.
While consolidation aimed to elevate status and visibility, it has inadvertently centralised authority and diluted institutional autonomy. Earlier, different scientific bodies exercised domain-specific control, whereas now, final approval rests with the central government, blurring the line between scientific merit and administrative discretion.
Issues and Concerns
| Issue Area | Key Observations |
|---|---|
| Transparency | Lack of clarity on selection procedures, criteria, and reasons for exclusion undermines credibility. |
| Autonomy of Science | Ministerial discretion risks politicising recognition, affecting scientific independence. |
| Meritocracy vs. Ideology | Perceived ideological bias or penalisation of dissent may discourage open scientific debate. |
| Centralisation | Consolidation under one framework reduces institutional diversity and peer-led evaluation. |
| Prestige without Incentive | Removal of cash components aligns with symbolic national awards but may reduce material recognition. |
Analytical Perspective
The RVP represents both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, it aspires to unify scientific recognition under a prestigious national umbrella; on the other, it risks compromising the integrity of peer evaluation — the cornerstone of scientific excellence. The politicisation of science awards can erode trust in institutions, discourage dissent, and stifle innovation by rewarding conformity over creativity.
Scientific recognition should be grounded in objective metrics of excellence, peer validation, and transparent governance, not administrative favour or political alignment. Centralisation, if unchecked, could shift India’s scientific ecosystem from collegial assessment to bureaucratic patronage, undermining long-term innovation culture.
Way Forward
- Institutional Independence: Establish a statutory and autonomous national science awards body with limited ministerial intervention.
- Transparent Criteria: Publish the full list of nominees, selection parameters, and reasons for non-selection to foster accountability.
- Peer-Led Evaluation: Empower scientific academies and independent experts to lead the screening and recommendation process.
- Safeguard Against Bias: Introduce grievance redressal mechanisms for alleged procedural or ideological bias.
- Balanced Incentives: While symbolic recognition is valuable, modest financial or research grants could complement the awards to encourage continued innovation.
Conclusion
The Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar aims to celebrate India’s scientific excellence and unify recognition under a single national framework. However, stature must rest on credibility, not merely symbolism. For the RVP to truly honour the spirit of Indian science, the government must adopt a hands-off approach, allowing scientists to evaluate their peers based solely on merit, contribution, and integrity. Restoring trust through autonomy and transparency will ensure that the awards inspire innovation rather than controversy.
UPSC Mains Practice Question:
Centralisation in scientific recognition may enhance visibility but risks compromising autonomy. Critically examine the implications of the Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar framework for India’s scientific ecosystem.
