Pleas seeking RTI details on development of Covaxin: Delhi High Court makes Bharat Biotech and Central government parties

The Delhi High Court on Monday made Bharat Biotech and the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) parties to the two petitions seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act about the investment and costs that went into developing Covaxin, India's indigenous vaccine against COVID-19..Justice Prathiba M Singh has been hearing three pleas challenging the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) refusing to provide these details citing trade secrets, intellectual property and sovereignty and integrity of India.Bharat Biotech and MoHFW were earlier made respondents only in one of those pleas. The Court noted that both of them are necessary respondents in all of the pleas, and therefore, a common memo of parties should be filed in all of the petitions. .Advocate Sughosh Subramanyam appeared for Bharat Biotech and told the Court today that the petitioner, Advocate T Prashant Reddy, has been censured by the Central government for "working against India's interests" and that he is spreading misinformation around the COVID-19 pandemic as well.Reddy's lawyer, Advocate Swathi Sukumar, challenged the assertion and said that these comments were with respect to the death of children in Gambia who drank Indian cough syrup, and not COVID-19 pandemic or vaccines. The Court then asked the counsel appearing for Bharat Biotech to place the notice issued by Centre to Reddy on record. .The Bench also noted Sukumar's submission that the CIC denied the information to the petitioner and concluded that there were trade secrets involved, without even looking at those documents. Sukumar, therefore, demanded that the documents be placed for the Court's examination.However, Justice Singh said that she will consider the request on the next date of hearing, which is scheduled on March 16..As reported by Bar & Bench earlier, while denying the documents and information to Reddy, the CIC had effectively upheld the stands of public information officers of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) denying the information. Reddy had sought details from the MoHFW about the purchase orders and advance purchase orders for COVID-19 vaccines. From BIRAC, he sought copies of agreements to issue funds for two private entities under Government of India’s ‘Mission COVID Suraksha’.He also sought a copy of the research collaboration agreement between ICMR and Bharat Biotech and the total costs and investment concerning the vaccine..However, the information was denied to him, citing Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.Section 8(1)(a) exempts a public authority from providing any information which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State and relation with foreign States.Section 8(1)(d) relates to information regarding commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property which would harm the competitive position of a third party..In his plea, Reddy has said that the ICMR’s blanket refusal to disclose the vaccine collaboration agreement with Bharat Biotech under the RTI Act is egregious, given that a substantial amount of public funds and resources were expended in developing Covaxin.He added that ICMR’s blanket refusal makes them an outlier amongst leading public research institutions like the University of Oxford and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that have published research collaboration agreements entered with private entities under the local Freedom of Information laws with few redactions.."Important": Delhi High Court on petitions seeking RTI details about development of Covaxin