Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Prasanth X vs Indian Council Of Medical ... on 10 April, 2026

                               के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई िद     ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/ICOMR/C/2025/608202


Prasanth X                                              ....िशकायतकता /Complainant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO
ICMR-Regional Medical
Research Centre,
,Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-751023                                       ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :   09.04.2026
Date of Decision                    :   10.04.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Jaya Varma Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on            :   26.11.2024
CPIO replied on                     :   Not on record
First appeal filed on               :   28.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :   Not on record
Complaint dated                     :   15.02.2025

Information sought

:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.11.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

"Under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, I kindly request the following information regarding ankylosing spondylitis research, treatment, and related issues based on studies, trials, or data available with ICMR and its affiliated hospitals:

1. The total number of studies conducted or funded by ICMR on ankylosing spondylitis over the past five years.

2. Details of ongoing or completed research projects focusing on the treatment, management, or complications of ankylosing spondylitis.

3. Information regarding the prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis among the Indian population, broken down by age, gender, and region.

4. Details of medications recommended for ankylosing spondylitis, including alternatives to Scapho infliximab, and their reported success rates.

5. Research findings on the long-term effects of Saaz 1000 (sulfasalazine) on patients with ankylosing spondylitis, particularly on male fertility.

6. Guidelines or protocols issued by ICMR for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in males experiencing fertility issues.

7. Data on fertility restoration success rates in male patients treated for ankylosing spondylitis and any associated complications.

8. Details of any clinical trials related to ankylosing spondylitis and their findings, particularly in relation to fertility and alternative treatment approaches.

9. Information on counseling or specialized services recommended for patients with ankylosing spondylitis experiencing medication-related complications. Additional Request:

kindly forward this application to all ICMR-affiliated hospitals, research institutions, and relevant departments to collect and provide the necessary details as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005."

2. The CPIO reply is not on record.

3. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2024.

The FAA order is not available on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.

Respondent: Dr. Jaya Singh Kshatri, CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.

5. The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.

6. The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application and First Appeal has not been received in the office at the initial stage and the same has been received along with the hearing notice from the Commission. She added that the Complainant in the instant RTI Application had sought extensive data regarding research, treatment, clinical trials, and funding related to Ankylosing Spondylitis. She clarifies that ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre (RMRC), Bhubaneswar, has not conducted, funded, or been involved in any studies or clinical trials related to Ankylosing Spondylitis. Furthermore, this regional center does not maintain centralized data regarding ICMR-wide funding or prevalence data for this specific condition across the Indian population.

7. A written submission has been received from Dr. Jaya Singh Kshatri, CPIO, vide letter dated 30.03.2026, stating as under:

"Respected Sir/Madam, With reference to the hearing notice, dated 13-03-2026, regarding the file cited above, the Respondent (CPIO, ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar) respectfully submits the following facts for the consideration of the Hon'ble Commission:

1. Non-Receipt of RTI Application and First Appeal The Appellant/Complainant alleges non-response to an RTI application dated 26-

11-2024 and a First Appeal dated 28-12-2024.

It is submitted that no such RTI application (Registration No. RMRCB/R/E/24/00010) or subsequent First Appeal was ever received by the CPIO or the FAA at ICMR-RMRC, Bhubaneswar on our online portal. The online portal currently shows no pending requests with us, and screenshots of the portal webpage are attached below for your kind perusal and information. Due to the non-receipt of the RTI application, the Respondent was not in a position to provide a response or transfer the application under Section 6(3) as requested by the applicant.

2. Status of Information Requested The Appellant has sought extensive data regarding research, treatment, clinical trials, and funding related to Ankylosing Spondylitis. The Respondent clarifies that ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre (RMRC), Bhubaneswar, has not conducted, funded, or been involved in any studies or clinical trials related to Ankylosing Spondylitis.

Furthermore, this regional centre does not maintain centralised data regarding ICMR-wide funding or prevalence data for this specific condition across the Indian population.

3. Prayer The Respondent maintains that there has been no intentional delay or dereliction of duty, as the application was never reflected in our records. In view of the above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly drop the proceedings against the CPIO, as the requested information is not held by this specific regional centre. Also, allow us to transfer the application to ICMR HQ, New Delhi, at this stage."

Decision

8. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-

"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."

9. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information CIC/ICOMR/C/2025/608202 Page 4 of 5 on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.

The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/ICOMR/C/2025/608202 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)