Make in India logo agency: what the DIPP RTI found — citizen guide 2026

Make in India — the government's flagship manufacturing promotion initiative — launched in September 2014 with a distinctive logo: an origami-style leaping lion made of gear cogs, in orange. The logo became one of the most recognisable government branding elements in recent Indian history. Billboards, advertisements, ministerial podiums, diplomatic materials, and international campaigns all carried it.

When a citizen filed an RTI asking who designed it and what they were paid, the answer was a matter of public record.

An RTI applicant — identified in some media reports by name; to avoid unverified attribution, referred to here as “an RTI applicant” — filed to the DIPP (Department for Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry) seeking information about the Make in India branding exercise, specifically the logo design contract. The application was filed approximately in 2014–2015, shortly after the Make in India launch. The response was reported in business and general-interest newspapers.

The RTI application to DIPP, as reported, sought:

1. The name of the advertising or design agency contracted to develop the Make in India brand identity (including the logo).
2. The total fee paid to the agency for the brand identity development, including logo design, brand manual, and associated creative.
3. Copies of the contract or work order issued to the agency.
4. Whether the contract was awarded through an open tender or through a limited or single-source procurement process.

DIPP's response disclosed:

• The name of the agency contracted for the Make in India brand identity work: Wieden+Kennedy, the international advertising agency (India office). This was reported in business newspapers including the Economic Times and Mint.
• The fee paid to the agency. The specific figure was reported in the press at the time; readers should verify the precise rupee figure against the original newspaper reports cited below, as the exact amount carried in different reports varies slightly.
• The procurement route (DIPP indicated the agency was selected through a competitive process, though the details of the tender were not always fully reproduced in press reports).

The disclosure was not controversial in the sense of revealing wrongdoing — the fee paid was within normal range for a major brand identity exercise. Its significance was demonstrating that government creative procurement is a public record, accessible to any citizen for ₹10.

Economic Times, Mint, Business Standard: Reported the RTI disclosure — agency name and fee — as a brief news item. The story was presented as a transparency item rather than a scandal.

Advertising industry coverage: Trade publications and advertising industry blogs noted the RTI disclosure with interest, pointing out that government branding contracts — which had previously been treated as confidential or difficult to access — were now demonstrably public record.

Broader Make in India scrutiny: The RTI fed into a wider pattern of public interest in the cost and management of Make in India — a programme that by 2016 had significant advertising and promotional expenditure across multiple ministries and state governments.

What this case proves you can do:

1. Government creative and communications procurement is public. Branding contracts, advertising agency fees, logo design, public relations retainers — all government procurement is subject to RTI. There is no commercial confidence exemption for contracts already executed: §8(1)(d) protects trade secrets, not the existence and value of a completed government contract.
2. “Who designed the government logo?” is a valid RTI question. The frivolous bar under §7(9) is very low — an RTI must be “manifestly frivolous or vexatious” to be rejected, and questions about government procurement never reach this bar.
3. Small RTIs produce replicable templates. The Make in India logo RTI established a template: any citizen can ask any government department for the identity and fee of any creative/communications agency they have contracted. This has been replicated for Swachh Bharat, Digital India, PM Kisan, and other campaigns.

If you want to follow up: DIPP is now DPIIT (Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade). File RTIs for current Make in India, Startup India, or other DPIIT branding expenditures via rtionline.gov.in.

• Economic Times on Make in India logo RTI — economictimes.indiatimes.com
• Mint on DIPP agency disclosure — livemint.com
• DPIIT official — dpiit.gov.in
• Make in India official — makeinindia.com

Yes. There is no category of “trivial” procurement that is exempt from RTI. Government contracts — whether for fighter jets or logo design — are public money and public record. Section 7(9) allows the CPIO to reject “manifestly frivolous or vexatious” requests, but a specific query about a known contract is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Section 8(1)(d) protects information that constitutes commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property “the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.” A fee already paid under a completed contract does not harm anyone's competitive position. Multiple CIC decisions have held that government contractor fees are not protected by §8(1)(d).

Possibly. DPIIT holds the brand manual as a document. If the manual is marked confidential by the agency, §8(1)(d) may be cited — but the government's instruction about how to use a publicly-displayed logo is hard to argue as a genuine trade secret. File the RTI and see what DPIIT says; a first appeal is available if they decline.

• Famous RTIs that changed India — index
• ₹142 crore for Aadhaar ads — what an RTI found at UIDAI
• International Yoga Day spending: what Factly's RTIs found
• AI RTI Drafter — file your own RTI now