Central Information Commission
Purushothaman Mulloli vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 27 April, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/MH&FW/A/2021/145176
Purushothaman Mulloli .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
(COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Cell),
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Drugs Controller-I & CPIO,
Directorate General of Health Services,
Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation,
FDA Bhawan, Opp. Mata Sundri College,
Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Department of Health &
Family Welfare (Drugs Regulation Section),
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.12.2020
CPIO replied on : 30.09.2021
First appeal filed on : 07.10.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 11.10.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 07.04.2021
Date of Hearing : 26.04.2022
Date of Decision : 26.04.2022
Page 1 of 17
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. Page 2 of 17 • PIO, Under Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Cell), furnished reply, vide letter dated 30.09.2021, as under:
• PIO, DGHS (CDSCO), furnished reply dated 12.07.2021, as under:Page 3 of 17
• PIO, MoH&FW (Drug Regulation Section), furnished reply dated 13.08.2021, as under:Page 4 of 17
• FAA, MoH&FW (Drug Regulation Section), vide order dated 22.09.2021, held as under:
• FAA, MoH&FW, vide order dated 11.10.2021, held as under:Page 5 of 17
• FAA, CDSCO, vide order dated 11.12.2021, held as under:Page 6 of 17
• Written submissions have been received from PIO, MoH&FW (COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Cell) vide letter dated 19.04.2022, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record, as under:Page 7 of 17 Page 8 of 17
• The justification furnished by PIO, CVAC, for invoking exemption of information under Section 8 (1) (a) of RTI Act, is as under:
• Written submission has been received from PIO, CDSCO, vide letter dated 22.04.2022, for perusal before the Commission and duly taken on record.Page 9 of 17
• Written submission has been received from Appellant dated 04.04.2022, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
• Written submission has been received from Appellant dated 20.04.2022, as under:
• Written submission has been received from Appellant, as under:Page 10 of 17 Page 11 of 17 Page 12 of 17
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Represented by Sarbjit Roy & Gita Dewan Verma, present in person.
Respondent: (1) Mr. Sushanta Sarkar, PIO, CDSCO (HQ), present.
(2) Mr. Satyendra Singh, PIO, CVAC, present.
(3) Mr. Bikash R. Mahato, Drug Regulation (MoH&FW), present.Page 13 of 17
Reptt. Of Appellant stated that relevant information, as sought in para 2(b) of instant RTI Application, has not been furnished by the concerned PIO, CVAC. Upon Commission's instance, Rep. of Appellant stated that they are satisfied with the rest of the information that has been furnished to him by the concerned PIO(s) in the instant matter.
Appellant requested the Commission to place their written submission on record for perusal. Commission takes on record all the written submission furnished by Appellant for perusal.
Respondent (2) submitted that the information sought in Para 2 (b) of instant RTI Application, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a) of RTI Act. He also submitted that disclosure of such information would prejudicially affect the economic and scientific interests of the country as such scientific information pertaining to vaccine development would be used by people/countries without authorization and for malicious intent.
Respondent (2) further placed reliance on decision of this Commission CIC/MOHFW/A/2021/625994 dated 16.08.2021.
Furthermore, Respondent (2) submitted that the decisions taken by NEGVAC has been proactively disclosed by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare on various platforms in the form of guidelines/SoP(s)/FAQs. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that Appellant is not satisfied with the information furnished to him by the concerned PIO, CVAC, with regards to Para 2 (b) of instant RTI Application. Whereas, Respondent has submitted that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a) of RTI Act, 2005, as disclosure of such information would prejudicially affect the economic and scientific interests of the country as such scientific information pertaining to vaccine development would be used by people/countries without authorization and for malicious intent. Respondent, CVAC, submitted that relevant information has already been furnished to Appellant, vide letter dated 30.09.2021 & 19.04.2022.
Commission places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The Page 14 of 17 provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16. It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use ofthe RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On:
16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance.."
Commission also takes into consideration the relevant extract of decision of the Commission CIC/MOHFW/A/2021/625994 dated 16.08.2021 as has been put forth by Respondent, CVAC, as under:
"...As has been observed from the submissions put forth by the Respondent, enough data is already available in public domain to assess the Page 15 of 17 functioning of public officials and various public offices in handling the pandemic, which has been acknowledged by the Courts and has drawn attention worldwide. In so far as the Central Information Commission is concerned, the scope of jurisdiction is as per the mandate of the RTI Act - to ensure transparency and accountability of public officials, by dissemination of complete and accurate information. But in ensuring transparency in functioning of the public authority, the Commission has to be careful in order to strike a balance between transparency and efficiency of public authorities.
The Apex Court has described this balance in their decision in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of Page 16 of 17 confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
Furthermore, Commission observes that material available on the websites, as mentioned by the Respondent, CVAC, in their submissions indicate that there is no dearth of information made available by the various public authorities to citizens to combat the pandemic. Dissemination of information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is of great value to the people thereby serving society at large. Moreover, Respondent, as facts indicate, has been adequately updating all relevant information on their public platform thereby serving the interests of all sections of the society.
Therefore, in view of afore-mentioned dicta of the Apex Court and observations made during hearing, Commission upholds the submissions made forth by the Respondent, CVAC, and observes that appropriate reply has already been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO and directs no further action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 17 of 17