केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DBTEC/A/2024/645176.

Shri. Prashant Reddy T. … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Biotechnology Industry Research Council …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of Decision : 04.09.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 11.06.2024 PIO replied on : 10.07.2024 First Appeal filed on : 13.08.2024 First Appellate Order on : NA

2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.10.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“The government has stated in Parliament that it sanctioned a sum of Rs. 107 crores to Zydus Cadila for the development of a DNA Covid vaccine through BIRAC. You are requested to please provide a copy of the agreement between BIRAC and Zydus Cadila.

Please note that the Delhi High Court in the attached judgment has stated that public contracts must be shared under the RTI Act subject to suitable redactions to protect the privacy of the concerned government officials.”

The CPIO, BIRAC vide letter dated 10.07.2024 replied as under:-

“The information sought on agreement between BIRAC and Zydus Cadila is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005.

The agreement contains information that is confidential and intellectual property of Zydus Cadila.

The fact and circumstances of the case cited by applicant do not involve scientific agreements.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2024. which was not adjudicated by the FAA.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Kavita Anandani, CPIO & CS and Amit Kumar DM- legal-, BIRAC and Mr. Anuj Chauhan- participated in the hearing Written submission dated 15.08.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

“1. I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled by the CIC on August 20th to decide the above captioned appeal and hence request you to decide the case based on these written submissions.

2. The subject matter of this appeal pertains to the denial of information by Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC). On 11.06.2024, I had requested BIRAC to provide me with a copy of the funding agreement between BIRAC and Zydus Lifesciences, for the purpose of development of the DNA vaccine for COVID. The CPIO, via reply date 10.07.2024, has denied me a copy of the agreement, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. A subsequent appeal to the First Appellate Authority was also denied and hence the present appeal to the CIC. It appears that a notice of the RTI request was issued to Zydus Lifesciences under Section 11 of the RTI Act, however, their objections submitted to BIRAC have not been shared with me.

3. At the outset, I would like to point out that BIRAC in its written submissions has attempted to mislead the CIC by alluding to a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution which I had filed before the Delhi High Court. The said case pertained to two vaccine agreements entered by BIRAC between Gennova Pharmaceuticals and Bharat Biotech India Limited. Subsequently, I filed an application seeking to withdraw the petition.

4. The present appeal pertains to an agreement entered with a different third party and for a different vaccine - from the one challenged before the Delhi High Court. It may also be noted that unlike the other two vaccines, the Union Government has spent Rs. 107 crores purchasing the DNA vaccine developed by Zydus Lifesciences with funding assistance provided by BIRAC.

5. Separate from