On 15 April, The Caravan carried a report titled, “Modi administration did not consult ICMR-appointed COVID task force before key decisions,” by the journalist Vidya Krishnan. The report noted that despite constituting a 21-member national task force on COVID-19 comprising leading scientists from across the country, the central government did not consult them on key health-policy decisions pertaining to India’s response to the pandemic. The ICMR had not responded to emails and messages seeking their comments well before the story was published, but that afternoon, the organisation tweeted that The Caravan’s report had made “false claims” and “conjectures.” Shortly afterwards, the Press Information Bureau also tweeted from its PIB Fact Check handle on Twitter, claiming that the article was fake news.
That evening, Krishnan wrote an email to Balram Bhargava, the ICMR’s director general, Vinod Paul, the chairperson of the task force, the official PIB Fact Check email address, and Manisha Verma, the assistant director general in the PIB for the health ministry. In it, Krishnan highlighted that her report published by The Caravan was based on four member-scientists of the task force, and that neither the ICMR nor the PIB had offered a response to several questions of grave importance raised by her in the article. She also pointed out that both Bhargava and Paul had been given sufficient time to respond before the article was published, which they had opted not to do. Finally, Krishnan asked several questions of the ICMR and PIB that arose from her report, without answering which it would be difficult for the organisations to characterise the report as false. Given that the ICMR had simply denied the allegations raised by members of the task force without any substantive response to them, Krishnan inquired about what fact-checking process the PIB had conducted before concluding that The Caravan’s report was fake news.
Krishnan asked the recipients to respond to the email by noon on 16 April. At 9:53 am, she received a response from the PIB Fact Check account, noting that the email was being forwarded to Verma for a detailed response, while also acknowledging that she was already marked on the email. At the time this rejoinder was published, Krishnan had not received a response from Bhargava, Paul or Verma. Published below is the full text of Krishnan’s email.
Dear Sirs,
On the morning of 15 April, The Caravan published a report titled, “Modi administration did not consult ICMR-appointed COVID task force before key decisions.” The article was based on interviews with four members of the task force, who told me that the centre had not consulted the task force on the decision to extend the lockdown. Members of the task force also said that the government did not discuss the decision to allow private clinics to test for COVID-19 and the price cap fixed for such tests, while the ICMR stated on affidavit to the Supreme Court that these decisions were taken after extensive deliberations with the national task force. Members of the task force also stated that the minutes of the meetings were not circulated among the members.
In this regard, I had written to both Dr Balram Bhargava, the ICMR director general, and Dr Vinod Paul, the chairperson of the national task force, seeking an interview for the story twice over two days. First, on the evening of 13 April, I emailed them asked for an interview, or the recommendations of the task force, or the minutes of these meetings. As per standard journalistic practice, I also clearly mentioned in the email that the story would be published soon and asked for a response by 6 pm on 14 April.
Yet, neither Dr Bhargava nor Dr Paul responded to my queries. In the afternoon of 14 April, I sent another email to both following up on my request. I also specifically mentioned in this follow-up email that three scientists from the task force had mentioned that the national task force had not met even once since the first week of April, which was the crucial six days before the decision to extend the lockdown was finally announced, on 14 April. I repeated the urgency of my request because I had to file the story, and stated that my deadline remained the same.
In keeping with the established practices of quality journalism, The Caravan went ahead with the report based on the four scientist and members of the task force as the sources for the report, along with the written evidences of the court orders and the ICMR's submissions to the Supreme Court, and published the report on 15 April, noting that the story would be updated with Dr Bhargava and Dr Paul's responses as and when they would respond. The merit of the story was reflected in the fact that after the publication, a fifth member of the task force also confirmed the details in the report, making it a story from five sources from within the task force.
I have so far not received a response from Dr Bhargava nor Dr Paul. However, following the publication of The Caravan's story, the ICMR's official handle tweeted at 1:15 pm, "There is a media report which makes false claims about the COVID-19 Task Force. The fact is that the task force met 14 times in the last month and all decisions taken involve the members of the task force. Please avoid such conjectures."
This tweet was later picked up by the official PIB Fact Check handle, which tweeted one hour later, "Claim : Caravan magazine has claimed that PM @narendramodi
did not consult the 21-member scientific #COVID taskforce before extending the lockdown Reality : All decisions were taken after consulting the taskforce."
Neither of these tweets, however, respond to the substance of The Caravan's story, insofar as the very specific accusations made by the members of the task force. In view of the same, kindly respond to the following questions:
1. ICMR tweeted that the task force met 14 times in the last month. The members of the task force said there was no meeting in the week preceding the lockdown. Did the task force have any meeting between 8 and 13 April?
2. Are members of the task force provided a copy of the minutes of its meetings? If not, why?
3. Did the ICMR/centre formally consult the task force on the decision to allow private clinics to test for COVID-19 and the decision to fix a price cap of Rs 4,500 for such tests? If yes, please provide a copy of the minutes of these meetings and the deliberations.
4. ICMR tweeted that the national task force met 14 times in the past month. Please provide the minutes of the meetings, the dates on which these meetings were held and the individuals who attended these meetings.
5. The Caravan's report also noted that according to two members of the task force, the ICMR has not yet established an "India COVID-19 Clinical Research Collaborative Network" as recommended by the task force. What is the current status of this?
6. What have been the recommendations of the task force during its meetings?
7. Why are the recommendations or minutes of the meetings not made available in the public domain?
8. Why did the ICMR not inform the Supreme Court that it was also consulting with a committee of private sector players involving Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, as she has herself acknowledged in interviews?
9. Please provide details about this committee of private-sector players: When was it constituted? Was there a formal notification or communication in this regard, similar to the national task force? Who were its members? How many times did the ICMR/centre consult with the committee? What were the recommendations of the committee?
10. Did the ICMR falsely submit before the Supreme Court that they had consulted with the task force on the decision to allow private testing?
11. Despite being an award-winning and internationally recognised journalistic institution, PIB claimed that The Caravan's report was fake news without answering these questions, even though all of this was clearly stated in the report. What fact checking process did PIB conduct before arriving at this conclusion?
Please feel free to reach out to me, in case you need more information from my side. We, at the Caravan Magazine, will greatly appreciate a response from you by 12 noon tomorrow. I hope that gives you ample time to respond.
Look forward to hearing from you,
Thank you.