Dr Sujatha Nott v. Indian Council of Medical research(ICMR)

"I am Dr. Subash Babu, Scientific Director of ICER India in Chennai. Over the past three years, I have submitted my DBT funded project Indo-foreign for BioRAPP/ HMSC clearance five times without success. Each time, HMSC has refused approval citing non-scientific reasons, including my employment status with

ICMR.

This is an Indo-Swiss collaborative project titled -Adult BCG Revaccination Induced Antibody and cTfh responses in Latent Tuberculosis individuals with or without diabetes mellitus- in response to the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) ISJRP Call for Proposals in 2020. This project was approved for funding by DBT in 2021, and BioRRAP directed our proposal to HMSC for clearance. We do not receive any foreign/ NIH funding (via FCRA) or ICMR funding for this project. This project is entirely funded by the DBT for the Indian side. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request the following information:

1. Explanation for HMSC assessment of the scientific merits of the proposal, which has already been approved by the Joint Committee of DBT, India, and the Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland.

2. Explanation for HMSC assessment of the scientific/ ethical merits of the proposal, which has already received scientific merit approval by NIRT-SAC, DPH SAC, NIRT-IEC, MVDRC IEC, and NIRT-CAB

3. Detailed criteria and policy for HMSC screening of proposals, including determination of eligibility to be a Principal Investigator according to Gol rules.

4. Clarification on HMSC role in determining my eligibility as the Principal Investigator of a DBT-funded project.

5. Detailed clarification on the role of HMSC in screening Indo-foreign collaborations funded by DBT, a separate agency under a different Ministry.

6. Explanation of HMSC role in projects funded solely by DBT, which belongs to the Ministry of Science and Technology, not the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

7. Information on how HMSC avoids conflicts of interest among its members.

8. Clarification on whether HMSC members with conflicts of interest recuse themselves during approval meetings.

9. Reasons for the lack of transparency in recording and circulating meeting minutes to the Principal Investigator.

10. Clarification on the absence of a nodal officer at HMSC for direct communication with Pls.

11. What is the rationale behind HMSC insistence on denying me the right to be the Indian PI when I wrote the protocol and secured the funding for the project?

CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 2 of 9 2 / 10

2

12. Why does HMSC require me to hand over the Indian Pl position to NIRT permanent staff who did not contribute at a level commensurate with PI responsibilities?

13. Detailed clarification on rules and restrictions for sample transfer to foreign institutions when the technology is not available in India."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.07.2024 stating as under:

"Reply

1. Explanation for HMSC assessment of the scientific merits of the proposal, which has already been approved by the Joint Committee of DBT, India, and the Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland.

Ans: HMSC screens projects as per the HMSC guidance on website (Point 3)- https://main.icmr.nic.in/content/health-ministry-screening-committee-hmsc. Also see response to Ques. 5.

2. Explanation for HMSC assessment of the scientific/ ethical merits of the proposal, which has already received scientific merit approval by NIRT-SAC, DPH SAC, NIRT-IEC, MVDRC IEC, and NIRT-CAB

Ans: HMSC screens projects as per the HMSC guidance on website (Point 3)- https://main.icmr.nic.in/content/health-ministry-screening-committee-hmsc.

3. Detailed criteria and policy for HMSC screening of proposals, including determination of eligibility to be a Principal Investigator according to GoI rules. Ans: Reference HMSC guidance on website-

https://main.icmr.nic.in/content/health-ministry-screening-committee-hmsc. Further refer to the response to Ques. 4.

4. Clarification on HMSC role in determining my eligibility as the Principal Investigator of a DBT-funded project.

Ans: Examined in terms of Note (i) of HMSC guidance on website- https://main.icmr.nic.in/content/health-ministry-screening-committee-hmsc.

5. Detailed clarification on the role of HMSC in screening Indo-foreign collaborations funded by DBT, a separate agency under a different Ministry. Ans: It is as per the mandate of HMSC-

https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/MoHFW_order.pdf

. Refer to para 3. CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 3 of 9 3 / 10

3

6. Explanation of HMSC role in projects funded solely by DBT, which belongs to the Ministry of Science and Technology, not the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Ans: It is as per the mandate of HMSC-

https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/MoHFW_order.pdf

. Refer to para 3.

7. Information on how HMSC avoids conflicts of interest among its members. Ans: By declaring any conflicts of interest by members/nominees.

8. Clarification on whether HMSC members with conflicts of interest recuse themselves during approval meetings.

Ans: Yes.

9. Reasons for the lack of transparency in recording and circulating meeting minutes to the Principal Investigator.

Ans: Relevant part of the minutes of HMSC meeting for each proposal is shared with the respective Principal Investigator.

10. Clarification on the absence of a nodal officer at HMSC for direct communication with Pls.

Ans: Details of contact persons available on website-

https://main.icmr.nic.in/content/health-ministry-screening-committee-hmsc.

11. What is the rationale behind HMSC insistence on denying me the right to be the Indian PI when I wrote the protocol and secured the funding for the project?

Ans: Reference minute of HMSC (30.01.2023 meeting) already conveyed.

12. Why does HMSC require me to hand over the Indian Pl position to NIRT permanent staff who did not contribute at a level commensurate with Pl responsibilities?

Ans: Not Applicable (as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act).

13. Detailed clarification on rules and restrictions for sample transfer to foreign institutions when the technology is not available in India. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Ans: Reference HMSC guidance on website (Point 6 iii)-

https://main.icmr.nic.in/content/health-ministry-screening-committee-hmsc."

CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 4 of 9 4 / 10

4

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.08.2024, held as under:

"Reply:- As per Section 19 (1) of The Right To Information Act, 2005, an Appeal can be filed by only the applicant and not by any other person."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

2. CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 15.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 09.07.2024 First appeal filed on : 06.08.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 19.8.2024 2nd Appeal dated : 09.09.2024

Information sought:

5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.06.2024(online) seeking the following information:

"CONTEXT: I am Dr. Subash Babu, Scientific Director of ICER India in Chennai. In June 2022, I applied for the DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR position, meeting all qualifications. Despite prompt submission of requested information to ICMR, there was no further communication.

Please Copy and paste the following link for my email correspondence with ICMR in reference to the vacancy of the the DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR position in 2022: www.tinyurl.com/DG-ICMR-Sec-DHR-2022

INFORMATION REQUEST:

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request:

1. Criteria and Policy:

-Detailed criteria and policy for DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR selection per Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act.

2. Reason for Non-Selection for interview:

-Specific reasons for non-selection despite meeting eligibility under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

--Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?

3. Selection Process Details:

CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 5 of 9 5 / 10

5

-Complete process for candidate selection, including criteria used and committee qualifications per Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act. --Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?

4. Evaluation of My Application:

-Reasons for non-shortlisting given qualifications under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

-Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?

5. Communication and Feedback:

-Why no communication after submitting June 2022 requested information?

(Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act)

--Any aspects of my application not meeting criteria?

6. Consideration for Other High-Level Positions in ICMR:

-I was interviewed for other positions in 2023, which were not pursued due to personal reasons. Why was I not shortlisted for DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR vacancy in 2022? (Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act).

7. Comparison with Subsequent Application:

-Applied for Additional DG-ICMR in 2023 with same eligibility, favorably considered. Clarify evaluation differences with DG-ICMR/Secretary DHR (Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act)."

6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.07.2024 stating as under:

"Reply:-pointwise reply is as under:-

6. Interrogative information does not qualifying under the definition as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act.

7. Reasoning or justification does not cover as information under Section 2(f) of RTI, Act."

7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 19.08.2024, held as under:

"Reply:- The CPIO has adhered to Section 4(1)(s) of the act by providing reasons for her decision of rejecting the information sought.

The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

The appeal stands disposed off."

CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 6 of 9 6 / 10

6

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Dr. Shumayila Khan, Scientist 'C' and Ms. Anita Sharma, SO, attended the hearing in person.

9. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite service of the hearing notice.

10. The Respondent submitted that the present appeals have been filed by Dr. Sujatha Nott whereas the RTI Application were filed by Dr. Subash Babu. Therefore, the Appellant is a third party to the original RTI request. She further apprised the Bench that Dr. Subash Babu vide email dated 26.07.2024 has informed their office that he is withdrawing all the RTI Applications filed in the month of June 2024.

11. A written submission has been received from Ms. Anita Sharma, CPIO, vide letter dated 21.01.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:

"With reference to your letter No. No. 01/CP/ICMR/CIC/2026 dated 14.01.2026 regarding second appeal filed by Dr. Sujatha Nott against RTI registration No. INCMR/R/X/24/00029, dated 15/28.06.2024 and First Appeal No. INCMR/A/E/24/00072 dated 06.08.2024 for which hearing is due before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Ms. Jaya Varma Sinha on 29.01.2026 at 11:00 AM. As CPIO, ICMR, New Delhi my humble submission to the RTI (Pointwise) of Dr. Subash Babu is as under: -

CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 7 of 9

7 / 10

7

"

12. A written submission has been received from Dr. Shumayila Khan, CPIO- cum-Scientist 'C', vide letter dated nil, stating as under:

"1. Preliminary Objection regarding Maintainability: It is humbly submitted that the original RTI application vide No. ICMR/R/T/24/00227 was submitted by Dr. Subash Babu (Scientific Director, ICER). However, the present appeal has been filed by Dr. Sujatha Nott from the USA. The Respondent invites the Commission's attention to the fact that the Appellant is a third party to the original RTI request, and the appeal's maintainability should be examined accordingly.

2. Background of the Proposal: The RTI request pertains to a research proposal titled "Adult BCG Revaccination Induced Antibody and cTfh responses in Latent Tuberculosis individuals with or without diabetes mellitus". This proposal was submitted by Dr. Subash Babu for consideration by the Health Ministry's Screening Committee (HMSC).

3. Non-Eligibility under Guidelines: Upon scrutiny, it was observed that Dr. Subash Babu, while working at ICER, was on the NIH (USA) payroll and was therefore deemed a foreign PI. As per the extant HMSC Guidelines, the Committee screens proposals submitted exclusively by Indian Pls. As the PI did not meet the eligibility criteria, the proposal could not be processed further.

4. Compliance and Disclosure: The Respondent CPIO has acted in bona fide discharge of duties. All available records held in material form have already been provided to the Appellant.

CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 8 of 9 8 / 10

8

PRAYER

In view of the above, as all available records have been provided to the Appellant under the RTI Act, the Commission is most respectfully requested to dismiss the present appeal."

Decision:

13. Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant RTI Application was filed by Dr. Subash Babu but the instant Second Appeals have been filed by Dr. Sujatha Nott. It is further noted that the Appellant in the instant cases have nowhere explained her locus or relation with the original RTI Applicant. Hence, the Commission considers that the present Appeals are not maintainable being infructuous. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)

Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुƅ)

Authenticated true copy

(अिभŮमािणत सȑािपत Ůित)

(Ashutosh Vasishta)

Dy. Registrar

011- 26107042

Copy To:

The FAA,

Indian Council of Medical

Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi

-110029

CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/639987 & CIC/ICOMR/A/2024/640339 Page 9 of 9 9 / 10

9

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 01 // 110

10