Central Information CommissionApurva Singh vs Indian Council Of Medical ... on 7 June, 2021केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग\n                         Central Information Commission\n                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका\n                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                          नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nद्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.          CIC/ICOMR/A/2021/618110\n\n\nMs. Apurva Singh\n\n\n                                                                 ... अपीलकताा /Appellant\n                                   VERSUS/बनाम\n\nCPIO                                                        ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent\nIndian Council of Medical Research\nV.Ramalingaswami Bhavan,\nP.O.Box No.4911,\nAnsari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029\n\n\n\nDate of Hearing                           :   03.06.2021\nDate of Decision                          :   07.06.2021\nChief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Y. K. Sinha\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nRTI application filed on                  :    04.05.2021\nPIO replied on                            :    06.05.2021\nFirst Appeal filed on                     :    07.05.2021\nFirst Appellate Order on                  :    07.05.2021\n2ndAppeal/complaint received on           :    14.04.2021\n\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nBased on a media report regarding partnership between the ICMR and Bharat\nBiotech International Ltd executed via a formal Memorandum of Understanding\n(MoU), the Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.05.2021 and sought\nthe following information with regard to the COVAXIN vaccine:\n\n  1. Copy of Memorandum of Understanding between the ICMR and the Bharat\n     Biotech\n  2. The amount of money spent on the development of the vaccine\n  3. The royalty which ICMR would receive from the sale of COVAXIN\n\n\n                                                                                Page 1 of 3\n  CPIO vide online disposal on 06.05.2021 denied the information with regard to\n point No. 1 & 2u/s 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act, 2005. With regard to point No.3, the\n appellant was informed that royalty of ICMR would be 5% on net sales.\n\n Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the appellant filed a first\n appeal on 07.05.2021. The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2021 disposed of the\n appeal on line with the following remarks:\n\n       The reply of the CPIO is satisfactory and in order. Third Party confidential\n       information can't be shared underRTI Act. The CPIO has already shared the\n       other available information.\n\n\nFeeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with\nthe instant Second Appeal.\n\nFacts emerging during the hearing:In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic,\nCOVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior\nnotice to both the parties.The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. She stated\nthat the information sought pertained to a formal MOU executed between the\nICMR (a Public Authority) and Bharat Biotech International Limited (hereafter\nreferred as Bharat Biotech) and exemptionu/s 8 (1) (j)of the RTI Act was\nincorrectly claimed by the Respondent. While stating that disclosure of information\ndid not involve any breach of privacy, the Appellant stated that even if it was\nassumed that the information sought may result in violation of commercial interest\nor trade secrets of a third party, the information has to be disclosed since ICMR is\na government body and Bharat Biotech is a company which does not fall within the\ndefinition of an individual having privacy rights. Moreover, the issues raised in the\nRTI application pertained to the larger public interest in the current situation.\nDuring the hearing, she also stated that the terms of an MoU between Microsoft\nCorporation (I) Private Limited and the Ministry of Agriculture were disclosed while\nreplying to another RTI application recently thus similar information sought in the\npresent matter should also be disclosed.In support of her contentions, she also\nreferred to the judgements of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inJamia Milia\nIslamiya vs Sh Ikramuddin WP (C) No5677/2011 and of the Jharkhand High\nCourt inState of Jharkhand vs Navin Kumar SinghaAIR 2008 Jharkhand 19.The Respondent represented by Dr R Lakshminarayanan, DDG (Admn), ICMR\nparticipated in the hearing through audio conference. While admitting that\nexemptionu/s 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act was incorrectly claimed earlier, Dr\nLakshminarayanan stated that the document sought is not a public document and\nis a highly sensitive agreement between the ICMR and Bharat Biotech having\ncommercial implications and can be used by other competing pharmaceutical\ncompanies for their commercial interests. Thus, the information sought is\nexemptedu/s 8 (1) (d)of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 3On being queried by the Commission if the agreement/ MOU/ contract is still in\noperation, Dr R Lakshminarayanan replied in the affirmative. The Appellant\nhowever stated that in case whole of the information cannot be disclosed, part of it\nwhich does not have any major commercial implication can be severedu/s 10and\nprovided by the Respondent.Decision\n\nHaving heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the\nCommission at the outset sets aside the reply of the CPIO where exemptionu/s 8\n(1) (j)of the RTI Act, 2005 was claimed. It is evident that the reply was erroneous\nsince the Appellant did not seek any personal information the disclosure of which\nhad any relationship with any public activity or interest or which would cause\nunwarranted invasion to the privacy of an individual. However, the Respondent\nduring the hearing claimed exemptionu/s 8 (1) (d)of the RTI Act and stated that\ndisclosure of information could have major commercial implications. It was also\nstated that the agreement is still in operation. The Commission concurs with the\nview of the Respondent and observes that the information sought would fall under\nthe ambit of the exemptionu/s 8 (1) (d)of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, since the\ncontract is still in operation and as stated by the Respondent contains\ncommercially sensitive terms and conditions, the Commission is not inclined to\ndirect disclosure of information applying severability clauseu/s 10of the RTI Act\nat this stage.The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in State of Jharkhand vs Naveen Kumar\nSingha and Anr, AIR 2008 Jharkhand 19 dated 08.08.2017 held as under"In our considered opinion a contract entered into by the public authority with a\n  private person cannot be treated as confidential after completion of contract."Hence, in the light of the above observations, no further intervention of the\nCommission is required in the matter. The instant Second Appeal stands disposed\noff accordingly.Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा)\n                                       Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्यसूचना आयुक्त)\n\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत)\n\n S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा)\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26186535Page 3 of 3