Dr. Adla Satya Narayan Rao v. Union Of India And Anr - RTI Act Challenge

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 26, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Dr. Adla Satya Narayan Rao vs Union Of India And Anr on 17 March, 2026

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5110/2019
Date of Decision: 17.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

                     DR. ADLA SATYA NARAYAN RAO                          .....Petitioner
                                       Through:    Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocate.

                                       versus

                     UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                             .....Respondents

                                       Through:    Ms Pratima N Lakra, CGSC for R-1.
                                                   Mr. Rohan P Shah, Sr. Advocates
                                                   with Mr. Srisabrish, Ms. Anusha
                                                   Nagarajan, Mr Rahul Ranjan, and Ms
                                                   Carina Arora, Advocates for R-2.

             CORAM:
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
                                       JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1.  The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14.11.2018 passed
            by the Central Information Commission (CIC), order dated 10.01.2017 by
            the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Order dated 02.09.2016 passed by
            the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) (hereinafter „the impugned
            decisions‟).
   

2.  The impugned orders arise out of the petitioner‟s application dated
            13.08.2016 seeking complete file along with all documents pertaining to the Signature Not Verified                                                       Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR                                                         Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026                                                      By:PURUSHAINDRA
   

   17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 1 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV
   application by Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd. submitted for market
   authorization registration for the purpose of manufacturing and sale of
   "Rhoclone" in India.

3.   The aforesaid application dated 13.08.2016 was rejected by the CPIO
            vide order dated 02.09.2016. Against the said order, the first appeal was
            dismissed on 10.01.2017 and the second appeal has been dismissed by the
            impugned order dated 14.11.2018, therefore, the petitioner is before this
            Court.
   

4.   Mr. Shikhar Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
            challenges the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:
   

(i) Section 10 of the Right to Information Act (" RTI Act ")
provides that where any part of the information sought is
exempt under Section 8, the exempted information is required
to be severed and the remaining information is to be disclosed.

(ii) Impugned orders are non-speaking as no specific reasons for
invoking the exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act are assigned.

(iii) Furnishing of the information sought, is, in the larger public
interest as the same pertains to public records and, therefore,
cannot be deemed to be confidential.
5. In order to substantiate the submissions, Mr. Garg has placed on
record his written submissions. He submits that public interest is involved
as there are concerns qua the safety and efficacy of Rhoclone, a monoclonal
anti-D immunoglobin. He places reliance on various studies and submits
that as per Sections 8 and 16 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the drug
to be marketed should be of a certain quality as per the Second Schedule to Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 2 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV
the Drugs and Cosmetics, Act, 1940.

1.  While placing reliance on a decision passed by the Supreme Court in
            the case of [TMA Foundation vs. State of Karnataka1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8064/), he submits that the
            public interest is wide expression, and its meaning must be ascertained in the
            context in which it is used. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the
            case of [Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu vs. Tamil Nadu
            Information Commission2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/991263/). He also submits that the information sought by
            the petitioner could have been severed, as provided under [Section 10](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/580445/) of the
            RTI Act. In order to substantiate his submissions that [Section 8(1)(d)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1838023/) of the
            RTI Act would have no application, he places reliance on the decision
            passed by the Supreme Court in the case of [Reserve Bank of India & Ors.
            vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors.3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86904342/); [Central Board of Secondary Education &
            Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1519371/).
   

2. In order to substantiate submission that the information sought by the
   petitioner is neither in commercial confidence nor is a trade secret, he places
   reliance on a decisions in the cases of Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information
   Commissioner & Ors.5; Hira Lal Bansal vs. Central Information
   Commission & Ors., 6, and Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Information
   Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Ors.7.

3.  The submissions made by Mr. Garg are strongly opposed by learned
            counsel who appears for the respondents.
   

.

1 (2002) 8 SCC 481 2 2010 6 CTC 541 3 2016 3 SCC 525 4 2011 8 SCC 497 5 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1607 6 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9828 7 2019 14 SCC 504 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 3 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV

1.  Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC and Mr. Rohan P Shah, Sr. Advocates
            with Ms Carina Arora submit that the Authorities have thoughtfully
            considered the entire controversy and have rightly come to the conclusion
            that the information sought for, should not be furnished for the reasons
            assigned in the impugned orders.
   

2. While taking the Court through written submissions filed by
            respondent no.2, it is pointed out that the information sought is exempted
            under [Section 8(1)(d)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1838023/) of the RTI Act and the reliance is placed on the
            decisions passed by this Court in the case of [Bharat Sanchar Nigam
            Limited v. Shri Chander Shekhar8](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7926018/); Naresh Tehran v. Rakesh Kumar
            Gupta9, and decisions passed by the CIC in the cases of [Himanshu Pathak
            v. Ministry of Railways10](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28060198/), and [Ajay Chadha v. Dr. R.S. Agarwal11](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67062473/).
   

3. In order to invoke the provision for exemptions under [Section 8(1)(e)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1494553/) of the RTI Act, the reliance is placed in the case of Institute of Chartered
            Accountant of India. v. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors.12; [Rakesh Kumar
            Gupta v. PIO Life Insurance Corporation and Ors.13](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38591701/); and [Central Board
            of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyaya & Ors](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1519371/).
   

4. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish any larger
            public interest. Reliance is placed in the cases of [Bihar Public Service
            Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi14](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55517912/); [B. Singh v. Union of
            India15](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/716916/); and another decision passed by the CIC in the case of Manoj 8 LPA 900/2010, Order dated 23.03.2012 9 WP (C) 85/2010 Order dated 24.11.2014 10 Order dated 15.09.2017 11 Order dated 01.09.2014 12 2011 (8) SCC 781 13 order dated 28.09.2011 of CIC] 14 (2012)13 SCC 61 15 AIR 2004 SC 1923 Signature Not Verified                                                     Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR                                                       Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026                                                    By:PURUSHAINDRA
   

   17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 4 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV
   Kumar Saini16.

5. Additionally, it is pointed out that once the decision is taken the scope
            of judicial review is limited to the extent of examining the perversity.
            Reliance is placed in the cases of [Appropriate Authority and Anr. v. Sudha
            Patil (Smt) & Anr.17](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1781159/); and M/s [R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement
            Commissioner (IT & WT) & Anr.18](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172649/).
   

6. It is also submitted that the balance has to be struck between right to
            information and right to privacy. In order to support the said submissions,
            the reliance is placed in the cases of [HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of
            India & Ors.19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52014360/); and [University of Delhi vs. Neeraj & Anr.20](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14765457/), and also on the
            decision passed by this Court in the case of [Vikas Nagar vs. Central
            Information Commission](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33011058/) through Its Chief Information Commissioner &
            Ors.21.
   

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
            parties and have perused the record.
   

8. The CPIO vide reply dated 02.09.2016 refused to disclose the
            information sought on the ground that the application pertains to
            information/ commercial confidence trade secrets or intellectual property,
            the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third parties
            and the said aspect would fall within the ambit of [Section 8(1)(d)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1838023/) of the RTI
            Act. The reply of the CPIO was upheld by the FAA, which further notes
            that the disclosure of the information sought was not necessary in the larger 16 Appeal No. Cic/Ls/A/2010/001044-Ds order dated 24.03.2011 (MANU/CI/2346/2011) 17 1998 (8) SCC 237 18 1989 (1) SCC 628 19 2022 SCC Online SC 1337 20 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5668 21 2026:DHC:1726 Signature Not Verified                                                                  Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR                                                                    Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026                                                                 By:PURUSHAINDRA
   

   17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 5 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV
   public interest.

9. It be noted that the drug in question has to pass the scrutiny under the
            regulatory regime governed by [Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1891720/). The public
            interest, if any, will have to be adequately considered by the concerned
            Authorities.
   

10. The order passed by the CIC comprehensively considered the aspect
             of public interest and has held that there does not exist any public interest
             warranting disclosure of the information considering that the drug in
             question has been scrutinized by the Regulatory Authority under the [Drug
             and Cosmetics Act, 1940](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1891720/).
    

11.  On perusal of the reasoning assigned by the CIC, the same would
             indicate that there is no infirmity. While [Section 10](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/580445/) of the RTI Act provides
             that exempt information, may be severed and the remaining information may
             be directed to be provided, however, the said provision does not make it
             mandatory for the Public Information Officer (PIO) to undertake the said
             exercise.        Even otherwise, the natures of the information sought are
             intrinsically associated. They do not seem to be genuinely severed.             The
             aspect of public interest will have to be considered depending upon the facts
             and circumstances of each case.
    

12. The affidavit filed by respondent no.1, particularly paragraph no. 4
             under the heading „reply to the grounds‟ states that on 30.08.2018 during the
             hearing of CIC following documents were provided to the petitioner:-
    

(i) Certificate of Analysis (Test report by National Institute of
Biologicals).
(ii) Form No. 26-1 of Rhoclone (Rhoclone 1 OOmcg, Rhoclone
150 mcg, Rhoclone 300 mcg) Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 6 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV
(iii) A copy of NOC issued on 19.06.2009 amendment in NOC
issued dated 11.05.2009 for material transfer of cell line.
(iv) Copy of NOC Issued on dated 19.01.2009 for Anti-D (Rho)
Immunoglobulin (Monoclonal)

(v) Copy of NOC dated 11.05.2009 for Immunoglobulin and other
product and import of Anti-Rho-D immunoglobulin
monoclonal semi-finished bulk.

(vi) Further, overview of product development and its safety related
information including brief write-up of technical and legal
submission for opposing the application and second appeal
filed by the appellant, submitted by M/s Bharat Serum and
Vaccine Ltd to CIC with a copy marked to Directorate General
of Health Services („DGHS‟), 0/o DCG(I) has also been
provided.

1. The authorities, namely the CPIO, the FAA, and the CIC, have
            comprehensively considered all the aforesaid aspects. The reasoning and
            conclusions arrived at by them do not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness,
            perversity, or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court in
            exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The view taken by the said authorities is a
            plausible and legally sustainable one, based on the material available on
            record. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on
            facts and do not advance his case, inasmuch, as they merely reiterate settled
            principles of law, which have already been taken into consideration.
   

2. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court is not inclined to interfere with
            the impugned decisions. The petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly,
            dismissed.
   

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 7 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV 23. However, the aforesaid adjudication will not be any impediment for
the petitioner to file a fresh application before the concerned Authority and
if the information which the petition proposes to seek is permissible in law,
let the said application be dealt with, in accordance with law.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MARCH 17, 2026/aks/ss.

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:35:28 W.P.(C) 5110/2019 Page 8 of 8 KUMAR KAURAV