Delhi HC to hear petitions challenging the denial of RTI in developing Covaxin

Court: Justice Prathiba M Singh 

Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court announced that it will hear petitions challenging the denial of information about investments and costs related to developing Covaxin, India's indigenous vaccine against COVID-19, in January.

Prashant Reddy, a lawyer, and the author have filed three petitions challenging the Central Information Commission's (CIC) orders in the High Court.
A CIC decision effectively upheld the decisions of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), and Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) to deny the information. 

In his request to the MoHF, Reddy sought information about the purchase orders and advance purchase orders for COVID-19 vaccines. His request to BIRAC was for copies of agreements that would issue funds to two private entities under the Government of India's "Mission COVID Suraksha."

In addition, he requested a copy of the collaboration agreement between ICMR and Bharat Biotech, as well as a breakdown of the vaccine's total costs and investments.

However, he was denied the information by citing Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

Section 8 (1) (a) provides that it is prohibited for a public authority to disclose information that could adversely affect India's sovereignty and integrity, security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests, and foreign relations.

Under Section 8(1)(d), confidential information, trade secrets, or intellectual property that could harm a competitor's position is covered.

According to Reddy, the ICMR's blanket refusal to disclose the vaccine collaboration agreement with Bharat Biotech under the RTI Act is egregious since Covaxin was developed using substantial public funds and resources.

According to the report, the ICMR is an outlier among public research institutions like Oxford University and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that have published research collaboration agreements with private companies under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws with few reactions.