Bharat Biotech’s Allegations Against Me, Thakur Foundation Are False And Defamatory: Prashant Reddy To Delhi High Court
Lawyer and author of ‘The Truth Pill’, Prashant Reddy T. has told the Delhi High Court that allegations made by Bharat Biotech against him and Thakur Foundation, during a recent hearing of his petitions seeking information on COVID-19 vaccines under Right to Information Act, are “false, defamatory and vexatious.”Reddy had moved three petitions challenging the orders passed by...
Lawyer and author of ‘The Truth Pill’, Prashant Reddy T. has told the Delhi High Court that allegations made by Bharat Biotech against him and Thakur Foundation, during a recent hearing of his petitions seeking information on COVID-19 vaccines under Right to Information Act, are “false, defamatory and vexatious.”
Reddy had moved three petitions challenging the orders passed by CIC upholding non-disclosure of the information by the CPIOs of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Indian Council of Medical Research and Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council. The CPIOs claimed that disclosure of the information was exempted under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
During the hearing on January 9, Justice Prathiba M Singh recorded the submissions made by Bharat Biotech’s counsel who had alleged that Reddy and Thakur Foundation are working "contrary to India's interests" and a notice was issued to them by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare through Central Drugs Control Organisation (CDSO) on October 15 last year. The counsel representing Bharat Biotech had also made other allegations against Reddy and Thakur Foundations, which were reported by LiveLaw.
Reddy has now moved an application seeking a clarification that “the reference as recorded in the order is irrelevant to the proceedings.” He has also placed on record the news report carried by Live Law.
He has also sought expunging of Bharat Biotech's submissions in relation to the Thakur Foundation, from the interim order.
In his application, Reddy has taken strong objection to the “scurrilous and false allegations” made by Bharat Biotech, and said he reserves the liberty to “pursue appropriate legal remedies” in the matter.
Justice Singh on Monday issued notice on the application and sought response of Bharat Biotech, Union of India through Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, CPIO Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) and Gennova Biopharmaceuticals Limited.
The application has now been listed for hearing along with pending petitions on March 16.
The application submits that CDSCO, which had sent a notice to Reddy and Dinesh Thakur, is neither a party in the proceedings nor is concerned with the information sought to be disclosed. It adds that the “communications concern an interview given by them to India Today” on recent deaths in Gambia because of DEG poisoning.
The application further states that the interview and CDSCO’s notice have no reference to COVID-19 vaccines or India’s vaccination policy.
“There is no reference to ‘Thakur Foundation’ in the notice dated 15.10.2022 or in subsequent communications. There is no reference to ‘Bharat Biotech International Limited’ i.e., Respondent No. 3, in either the India Today interview or CDSCO communications,” the application states.
Calling the allegations made by Bharat Biotech as baseless, Reddy has stated that the submissions made against him and Thakur Foundation have the potential of lowering their reputation.
“The Respondent No. 3 has made these false and vexatious submissions with an intent to distort facts and present a false narrative to the Hon’ble as the Respondent No. 3 does not wish to have the present matter to be heard on merits,” it adds.
The application further submits that the allegations levelled by Bharat Biotech are irrelevant and immaterial to adjudicate the issues before the court.
“The RTI Act guarantees the Petitioner – a citizen of India – the right to access public records held by or under the control of public authorities. Likewise, it is settled law that this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 is empowered to review administrative orders that deny constitutional and statutory rights,” the application reads.
One of the pleas has been filed against an order passed by Central Information Commission (CIC) on October 10, 2022, allowing the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to withhold disclosure of the purchase orders for COVID-19 vaccines.
The second plea seeks direction for disclosure of a copy of the collaboration agreement entered with Bharat Biotech and a breakup of costs and investments relating to COVAXIN under the RTI Act.
The third plea seeks the copy of funding agreements entered with Gennova and Bharat Biotech as well as the total amount of funds that have been disbursed so far.
In his pleas moved through Advocate N. Sai Vinod, Reddy has placed reliance on a 2009 full bench decision of CIC in Navroj Mody v. Mumbai Port Trust which held that "mere fact of the presence of the confidentiality provision in the License Agreement was a sufficient condition to keep the Agreement secret, /is/ untenable." It was held in the decision that the terms of public-private partnership agreement cannot be exempted under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
The petitioner has also averred that the refusal to provide the said information denies the right of public to know about the basic terms of the partnership, especially those relating to responsibilities of contracting entities, important milestones and timelines, vaccine pricing, warranties and immunities.
The plea also states that the agreement concerning research and development of COVID-19 vaccine is distinct from commercial aspects relating to vaccine procurements and vaccinations, adding that the ICMR has failed to identify the detrimental nature of adverse effect on vaccinations from disclosure.
Title: Prashant Reddy T. v. Union of India & Another and other connected matters