Central Information Commission
Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar vs Indian Council Of Medical ... on 11 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/603308
Shri Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Indian Council of Medical Research(ICMR) ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.02.2025
Date of Decision : 07.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.10.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 01.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : 29.12.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"We are writing to request your guidance and clarification regarding an important matter concerning the intellectual property rights (IPR), including Copyright or Patent, for a Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tool that we, as undergraduate medical students, have developed under the guidance of the Department of Community Medicine.
Our aim is to ensure that the COA tool is protected by the appropriate legal means, and in doing so, we seek a clear understanding of the rules, regulations, formalities, ethical considerations, and rights associated with this process. Moreover, we have a pressing concern regarding the ownership of the COA tool, whether it is attributed to the principal investigators or the head of the institution who provided permission to conduct the research in the institution.
We kindly request the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to provide us with comprehensive information on the following aspects:
Rules and Regulations: Please inform us of the statutory rules and regulations that govern the process of seeking Copyright, IPR, or Patent for a Clinical Outcome Assessment tool, particularly when developed by undergraduate medical students acting as principal investigators.Page 1 of 3
Formalities and Documentation: We would appreciate your guidance on the formalities and documentation required when filing for Copyright, IPR, or Patent for such a tool. This should include information on any specific application processes or forms to be completed.
Ethical Considerations: Please outline the ethical considerations that must be adhered to during the process of filing for Copyright, IPR, or Patent, with a specific focus on maintaining ethical standards, given the collaborative nature of the tool's development under the guidance of the Department of Community Medicine. Ownership: Our main concern is related to the ownership of the COA tool. We would like to understand whether, in typical cases, ownership is vested in the principal investigators or if it is assigned to the head of the institution. Clarification on this matter is vital for making informed decisions.
Review Process: We are interested in knowing the typical review process and oversight mechanisms that are in place when an undergraduate medical student seeks Copyright, IPR, or Patent for a tool developed within an institutional setting. We are fully committed to upholding the highest standards of ethics and compliance with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements in our pursuit of protecting the COA tool. Your expertise and insights on these matters will not only assist us in making well-informed decisions but will also contribute to the promotion of innovation and research within the field of medicine.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and eagerly await your response and any additional information you can provide. Please feel free to contact us at [email protected] or +91-9150510826 to communicate your response."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 29.12.2023 held as under:-
"Your appeal is related to Department of Community Medicine, kindly contact Department of Community.
Medicine for relevant details. This appeal is not pertaining to ICMR."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the ICMR reiterating that ICMR has launched a comprehensive Intellectual Property Policy in November 2024, which is available for reference on the official website at www.icmr.gov.in/icmrobject/uploads/Guidelines/1732606695_icmrintellectualprope rtypolicy.pdf. A copy of the same has also been attached with the submission.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Dr. Suchita Markan - Scientist - E, ITR and Dr. Akansha Garg Agarwal - Consultant, ICMR were present during hearing.
On being asked by the Commission, the Appellant denied having received the recent written submission filed by the Respondent.Page 2 of 3
The Respondent placed reliance on the written submission dated stating that whatever information is available in the public domain, access thereof has been duly provided to the Appellant in response to his queries.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing the averments of both parties, it is evident that information available on records and as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly disclosed by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the Act.
It is noted that the written submission filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains comprehensive and self explanatory information. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send a copy of the written submission with relevant annexures, to the Appellant, through email and speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order, through speed post. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter. In view of the fact that appropriate response is disseminated by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)