New Delhi, April 25: After charges of plagiarism and allegations that he compromised India’s interests to favour multinational drug companies, former CSIR chief R.A. Mashelkar’s foreign travel and means of income are now under the scanner.

Details of foreign trips made by the embattled technocrat will be scrutinised by the Central Information Commission after the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research claimed the information was “secret” and “sensitive” and therefore could not be disclosed to information-seekers.

A team of CIC officials, headed by chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, will inspect the documents on May 9 at Anusandhan Bhavan — the council headquarters.

“Based on our inspection, we will see whether the CSIR argument for secrecy has any validity,” Habibullah told The Telegraph.

The council has also been asked to reveal details of Mashelkar’s sources of income apart from his official salary.

Mashelkar told The Telegraph he “had nothing to hide”.

“I have no issues with this information being made public. On each of my foreign trips I have sought and received permission from the government. The government knew everything about each visit,” he said.

An application under the Right to Information Act sought details of Mashelkar’s trips — including the visits that were paid for by private firms or foreign governments — between 1998 and 2004.

The appellant wanted copies of the request Mashelkar made to the Prime Minister seeking clearance for the trips funded by foreign governments or private firms.

Copies of requests for clearance of trips for which he was invited in his personal capacity were also sought, as were copies of the Prime Minister’s approval of the clearance.

In its reply the council said the Prime Minister — also the CSIR president — had designated the task of clearing Mashelkar’s foreign travel to the then science and technology minister Murli Manohar Joshi.

Mashelkar, according to the council, made 29 trips between 1998 and 2004 that were funded completely by foreign governments or private firms — but all of these were in his official capacity as director-general of the council.

The council declined to give details of the agenda of his visits — which the appellant said were necessary to establish the nature of the conferences he went for.