In a recent development concerning transparency and access to information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) to formally file an affidavit stating that information regarding government funding provided to Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers during the pandemic is “not available” with the department. The order, issued on January 7, 2026, comes in the backdrop of an RTI appeal filed by Mahavir Singh Sharma, who had sought detailed data on financial assistance extended by the Union government to vaccine manufacturers, including the Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech, during the crucial period of 2020–2021.

The case underscores the ongoing public interest in understanding the financial and logistical framework employed by the government during the Covid-19 crisis, particularly in relation to the rollout of the country’s vaccination programme and the large-scale funding provided to private manufacturers for vaccine development and distribution. It also highlights the procedural nuances under the RTI Act, where the absence of information must be formally recorded to maintain legal clarity.

Background of the RTI Application

Sharma’s RTI application, filed on October 6, 2023, sought a comprehensive account of government funding provided to Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech. Specifically, he requested details about several thousand crores of rupees released by the Union government without bank guarantees, the status of repayment or interest, and whether vaccine doses had been delivered in lieu of the funding provided.

The applicant also asked for detailed records of vaccines distributed abroad with government approval and the corresponding payments received from foreign recipients. Additionally, he sought to verify whether all Indian citizens were administered the Covishield and Covaxin vaccines or if any citizens were left out, and he requested total expenditure incurred by the government on the procurement of these vaccines. Finally, he inquired whether other Covid-19 vaccines were purchased for Indian citizens.

The RTI application, reflecting concerns over transparency and accountability, was initially filed with another government department before being transferred to DPIIT. According to DPIIT officials, the information requested was not maintained or held by their logistics division, prompting a formal response to Sharma indicating the non-availability of records.

DPIIT’s Response and First Appellate Authority

In response to the RTI request, DPIIT’s logistics division stated:

“With reference to your RTI application on the subject cited above, the requisite information sought is not available with the logistics division, DPIIT. Therefore, the requisite information may be treated as ‘NIL’.”

This response was later upheld by the First Appellate Authority, confirming that the department did not possess the requested data. Despite this, the CIC noted that while the communication provided by DPIIT was technically accurate, a formal affidavit was required to legally affirm that the sought information was unavailable. This procedural step ensures clarity in official records and allows the commission to dispose of the appeal appropriately.

CIC’s Directions

In its order, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi emphasized the need for DPIIT to place its claim of non-availability of information on record through a legally binding affidavit. The commission directed the department to submit the affidavit within 15 days. The affidavit must:

1. Contain a categorical statement asserting that the information sought in the RTI application is not available with DPIIT.
2. Be submitted both by post and through the CIC’s compliance portal.
3. Include a copy to be served to the appellant, Mahavir Singh Sharma.

The directive reflects CIC’s adherence to procedural rigor under the RTI Act, ensuring that claims of non-availability are formally documented and verifiable. It also illustrates the commission’s efforts to balance citizen demands for information with the practical realities of record-keeping across different government departments during an unprecedented global pandemic.

Significance of the RTI and Public Accountability

The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, has long served as a tool for citizens to hold public authorities accountable. In the context of Covid-19, transparency regarding government funding and vaccine distribution has remained a matter of significant public interest. While DPIIT may not have maintained these records, Sharma’s application underscores the public’s concern over the financial arrangements between the government and vaccine manufacturers, particularly regarding large sums released without traditional bank guarantees.

During the Covid-19 crisis, India relied on private manufacturers such as the Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech to rapidly scale vaccine production. The government’s financial interventions, often executed under emergency protocols, were intended to expedite manufacturing and ensure timely delivery to citizens. However, with large sums involved and international transactions taking place, there is a strong public interest in tracking how these funds were utilized, the quantity of vaccines produced, and whether commitments were met both domestically and abroad.

Sharma’s RTI application reflects multiple layers of accountability, including:

• Verification of government disbursements to vaccine manufacturers.
• Confirmation of delivery of vaccine doses in exchange for funds provided.
• Documentation of vaccine distribution to Indian citizens and international recipients.
• Total expenditure incurred for procurement and administration of vaccines.

Although DPIIT indicated that it did not hold the requested data, the CIC’s order ensures that the department’s position is formally documented, providing legal closure while maintaining the applicant’s right to follow up with other agencies or departments that may possess the relevant records.

Wider Context: Vaccine Funding During the Pandemic

During the Covid-19 pandemic, India launched one of the world’s largest vaccination drives. The government facilitated funding for key domestic manufacturers to scale production quickly, focusing on the dual objectives of ensuring domestic coverage and supplying vaccines internationally. This approach allowed India to provide millions of doses at subsidized rates to neighboring countries and participate in global health initiatives.

However, the emergency nature of these arrangements, combined with decentralized record-keeping across ministries, created gaps in documentation that are now becoming the subject of public queries through RTI applications. DPIIT’s logistics division, as noted in its reply, did not maintain records of funding disbursed, prompting the commission’s directive for an affidavit to formally affirm non-availability.

Next Steps and Implications

With the CIC’s order, DPIIT is required to submit the affidavit, which will serve as an official record confirming the absence of requested data. Once filed, the commission may dispose of Sharma’s appeal while providing clarity on the scope of information maintained by DPIIT.

The case also sets a precedent for future RTI applications regarding pandemic-related interventions, emphasizing the need for clear record-keeping, inter-departmental coordination, and timely responses to public queries. Citizens seeking detailed data on government initiatives during emergencies can expect formal procedures to verify whether information is genuinely unavailable or simply not centralized.

Conclusion

The CIC’s directive to DPIIT highlights the delicate balance between citizen demands for transparency and the practical limitations faced by public authorities in maintaining records during unprecedented emergencies. While the logistics division of DPIIT did not have the requested information on Covid-19 vaccine funding, the requirement to submit an affidavit formalizes this stance and provides legal closure to the RTI appeal.

The case serves as a reminder of the ongoing importance of accountability and transparency in public administration, especially in matters of significant public health impact and substantial financial outlays. It underscores the role of the RTI Act and the Central Information Commission in ensuring that citizens can seek clarity on government actions, even when information is dispersed across multiple departments or unavailable due to extraordinary circumstances.