Over the last decade we have read many an obituary about the Right to Information Act. Let me add to that long list of obituaries by narrating how I lost eight out of nine cases before one Information Commissioner – Heeralal Samariya, a former IAS officer who was first appointed to the Central Information Commission in August 2021 and then subsequently appointed Chief Information Commissioner in November 2023.
That makes Samariya the head of the CIC, which is perhaps the most important institution under the RTI Act because it decides all appeals being filed by citizens against the denial of information by the government of India.
For most of its young history, the CIC has mostly had a reputation for being relatively fair and even-handed in deciding appeals. Some of the commissioners in its early years like Wajahat Habibullah, Shailesh Gandhi and Madabhushi Sridhar gave the institution a strong foundation.
Those days are now long gone.
Regrettably, the CIC is no longer an institution with a reputation for fairness. I say this based on my personal experience of losing eight out of nine cases before Samariya in a series of astounding decisions delivered between October 2022 and December 2024.
These appeals involved the denial of information regarding inquiries into deaths at PGIMER, Chandigarh due to contaminated drugs. It involved denial of information into scandals at clinical research organisations and the working of central drug laboratories responsible for testing the quality of drugs. And it involved denial of information on expenditure of public money on the purchase and development of vaccines for Covid-19.
Appeal 1: CDL in Kolkata
Let me begin by explaining an incredibly simple appeal I had filed on April 13, 2022 regarding the denial of my requests under the RTI Act by the Central Drug Laboratory in Kolkata.
CDL plays a critical role under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 as an “appeals lab” in cases that have a direct impact on criminal prosecutions of pharmaceutical companies. I had asked a series of questions pertaining to testing equipment that it used, the number of samples tested, etc.
CDL refused to answer a single query on the grounds that the information I sought did not even fall within the definition of “information” as per the RTI Act. This was an absurd reply as evidenced by the fact that other state and central laboratories answered the exact questions that I posed to the CDL without any controversy.
When my appeal came up before Samariya, my lawyer informed him that other government labs had answered the very same queries. Despite being shown these replies provided by other labs, Samariya passed an order upholding CDL’s denial of information with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever.
Here is the entire operative part of his order:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
As obvious to even non-lawyers, there is no reasoning in his order whatsoever, forget rebutting specific arguments put forth by my lawyer.
It gets worse.
Appeals 2-6: Suppressed reports, notice never issued
I filed two appeals with the CIC against the denial of information by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, India’s drug regulator. Samariya disposed of both without either the government representative or my lawyer being present at the hearing.
Both orders, accessible here and here, clearly note that nobody was present from either side. The only reason my lawyer was not present at the hearing was because I never received notice of my hearing from the CIC, as was the case, I suspect, with CDSCO, which also did not send a representative for the hearing.
When neither party is present, it is general practice within most adjudicatory bodies to reissue notice. But in this case, Samariya conducted an ex-parte hearing and ruled against me.
A fourth appeal that I lost before Samariya pertained to an inquiry report that PGIMER has suppressed regarding the deaths of five patients in October 2022. According to The Tribune, contaminated drugs caused the deaths.
In its response, PGIMER did not deny the existence of an inquiry report. It also did not cite a single ground in Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny the information to me. If a public authority cannot justify the denial of information on the basis of Section 8, the CIC is expected to order the public authority to disclose the information.
Except that, in this case, instead of deciding the appeal in my favour, Samariya sent the case back to PGIMER to provide me with a “fresh reply” despite the fact that there is no provision in the RTI Act which allows him to remand cases back to the public authority which has already denied information. Not just that, Samariya also advised PGIMER’s public information officer to “make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant”.
This after it took me 21 months to get a hearing before the CIC. It has been two months since that order and I am yet to hear from PGIMER.
PGIMER did not deny the existence of an inquiry report. It also did not cite a single ground in Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny the information to me. If a public authority cannot justify the denial of information on the basis of Section 8, the CIC is expected to order the public authority to disclose the information. Except that, in this case, instead of deciding the appeal in my favour, Samariya sent the case back to PGIMER.
Two other cases where I lost before Samariya pertained to an inquiry by CDSCO into alleged malpractices by clinical research organisations during clinical trials in Hyderabad where at least one person lost his life. This inquiry into the conduct of the clinical research organisations responsible for these clinical trials was ordered in 2011.
I had originally requested a copy of that report in 2016 and was told the investigation had not been completed. In 2021, I once again asked for a copy of that report and this time, CDSCO claimed that no such report was available with it. Given these contradictory answers, I filed an appeal and a complaint with the CIC against the public information officer at the CDSCO for knowingly providing me with incorrect information.
This was an “open and shut” case in my favour. Yet Samariya ruled against me in both cases. As will be evident from a reading of Samariya’s order, there is no reasoning whatsoever in his order. As a result, we have no idea of what came of that inquiry into which a man lost his life because of a poorly regulated clinical research organisation.
Appeals 7 and 8: The vaccine contracts
The final set of two appeals which I lost before Samariya pertain to Covid-related vaccines. One was on the contracts between the Indian government and manufacturers for the purchase of Covid vaccines. The other pertained to the contract between the Indian Council of Medical Research and Bharat Biotech for the development of a vaccine for Covid.
Both contracts involve the use of public money – one to buy vaccines and the other to develop a vaccine. In both cases, the Ministry of Health and ICMR declined to disclose information on the grounds that it would violate the sovereignty of India and that it contained commercially sensitive information on third parties.
These are inconsequential grounds. In Navroz Mody v. Mumbai Port Trust, a full bench of three information commissioners of the CIC decided in 2009 that all contracts involving expenditure of public money should be disclosed to the public. At the time, the erstwhile Planning Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General participated in the proceedings and informed the CIC that they were in favour of transparency with regard to such public contracts.
Pertinently, the CIC in the case had summarised the views of the Planning Commission and the CAG as follows:
During the hearing, the representatives of the Planning Commission and the C&AG informed Commission that it was their considered view that no PPP Agreements should be held confidential and should be made available in the public domain. They discounted any possibility of commercial information getting exposed due to this disclosure.
Going by this logic, vaccine purchase agreements and vaccine development contracts, both of which involve public money, should have been made publicly available. Except Samariya ignored this precedent of the CIC and once again ruled against me in both appeals (see here and here) involving the purchase and development of vaccines. Despite noting that my lawyer cited the precedent in Navroz Mody, he does not explain his reasons for deviating from the reasoning provided in that precedent of the CIC.
The end
I have used the RTI Act for over 15 years now mainly to collect research material for my scholarship or books that I was writing on drug regulation and India’s policy on intellectual property. In fact, the acknowledgment sections for both my books begin with a note of gratitude to those behind the RTI Act and the public information officers who provided information.
Much of this successful information collection happened during the Modi years. However, the last five years have marked a downward trend in the quality of information being provided under the RTI Act. In fact, the quality of replies I’ve received under the act have deteriorated significantly. I suspect this downward slide is because public information officers have figured out that the CIC is not going to hold them accountable.
Institutions such as the CIC should serve as guardrails against attempts by governments to suppress information. The hollowing of institutions, as documented thoroughly by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, begins with the appointment of people whose loyalties lie with the party rather than with the law.
As a citizen, I no longer have faith in the CIC as an institution. Its fidelity to the law is suspect; it appears to be answering to higher powers. And so today, I officially join the ranks of the doomsayers who have declared the death of the RTI Act. My gratitude to my lawyer Sai Vinod for regularly appearing on my behalf before the CIC in what were essentially kamikaze hearings. Perhaps we will have a new dawn someday, but I am sceptical of our ability as a society to reverse the institutional rot that has taken deep root at the CIC.
Newslaundry contacted Heeralal Samariya for comment. This report will be updated if he responds.
Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Click here to subscribe to Newslaundry, and join the tribe that pays to keep news free.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
