PM CARES Fund doesn’t belong to govt; info can’t be revealed under RTI: PMO to Delhi HC

News Network
January 31, 2023

PMcares.jpg

The PM CARES Fund is not a government fund as donations to it do not go to the Consolidated Fund of India and no third party information can be parted with irrespective of its status under the Constitution and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court was informed on Tuesday.

An affidavit filed by an under secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), who is discharging his functions in the PM Cares Trust on honorary basis, has said the trust functions with transparency and its funds are audited by an auditor -- a chartered accountant drawn from the panel prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

It contended that irrespective of the status of Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund) under the Constitution and the RTI Act, it is not permissible to disclose third party information.

The affidavit was filed in response to a petition seeking a direction to declare the PM CARES Fund a 'State' under the Constitution to ensure transparency in its functioning.

The same petitioner has also filed another petition to declare PM CARES as a "public authority" under the RTI Act, which is being heard together with this plea.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner Samyak Gangwal and asked the office of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to inform the court about his availability to argue the case.

The affidavit filed by Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Under Secretary at the PMO, said the prayers made in the present petition are not maintainable as PM CARES does not constitute a "public authority" under the provisions of RTI Act.

“I reiterate and submit that the PM CARES Fund has been set up as a Public Charitable Trust. This Trust is not created by or under the Constitution of India or by any law made by the Parliament or by any State Legislature.

“This Trust is neither intended to be or is in fact owned, controlled or substantially financed by any government nor any instrumentality of the government. There is no control of either the Central government or any state government/s, either direct or indirect, in functioning of the Trust in any manner whatsoever,” the official said.

The affidavit added that the composition of the Board of Trustees consisting of holders of 'Public Office ex-Officio' is merely for administrative convenience and for smooth succession to the Trusteeship.

It said PM CARES is not a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act and as such provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable on the trust and added that on this preliminary issue the petition deserves to be dismissed.

“The PM CARES accepts only voluntary donations by individuals and institutions. Contributions flowing out of budgetary sources of government or from the balance sheets of the public sector undertakings are not accepted. Conditional contributions, where the donor specifically mentions that the amount is meant for a particular purpose, are not accepted in the Fund,” it said.

The affidavit further said that the cause for which PM CARES Fund was created and exists is purely charitable and neither the funds of this trust are used for the government projects nor is the trust governed by any of the government policies, so it cannot be labelled as "public authority".

It said PM CARES does not get any budgetary support from the Consolidated Fund of India and the assumptions of the petitioner regarding arbitrariness or non-transparency are devoid of merit.

“The benefit of the objects of the Trust have been made available to the general public irrespective of caste, creed, sex, region, language and religion. Moreover, Trust Deed of the PM CARES Fund along with grants sanctioned from the fund are available in public domain on the website pmcares.gov.in. Audit reports of the PM CARES Fund are already available on the website…,” it said.

The affidavit also raised objection over locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition and said he has taken upon himself to espouse a cause which is intended to be created in a manner which ex-facie is guided by an ulterior motive to find his place in the public eye.

“The present case is a classic case of a busy body attempting to gain publicity under the garb of public interest litigation,” it said, adding that the plea was preferred with oblique motives and it be dismissed with exemplary costs.

It also said that the petition has attracted a lot of traction in the media houses via online reporting and through other means, which seems to be the end goal of the petition, that is, to agitate a publicity interest litigation in the garb of public interest litigation.

“It will not be out of place to state that the petitioner being proxy is a means for unscrupulous hands to further their personal causes,” the affidavit said.

It further said that the petition has been preferred in vacuum, by way of clever drafting, attempts to espouse and agitate a cause of “certain groups with vested interest for extraneous reasons”.

“I state that when the petitioner is claiming to be a public-spirited person and seeking to pray for various reliefs only for transparency, it does not matter whether PM CARES is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India,” the officer said in the affidavit.

It said that all donations received by the trust are received via online payments, cheques or demand drafts and the amount received is audited with the audited report and the expenditure of the trust fund displayed on the website.

“The Trust functions on the principles of transparency and public good in larger public interest like any other charitable trust and, therefore, cannot have any objection in uploading all its resolutions on its website to ensure transparency,” it said, while reiterating that “the trust’s fund is not a fund of Government of India and the amount does not go in the Consolidated Fund of India.”

The officer said he is discharging his functions in the PM CARES Trust on an honorary basis which is a charitable trust not created by or under the Constitution or by any law made by the Parliament or by any state legislature.

In his plea, petitioner Gangwal has said that the PM CARES Fund is a 'State' as it was formed by the prime minister on March 27, 2020 to extend assistance to the citizens of India in the wake of the public health emergency -- the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

His counsel told the court that if it is found that the PM CARES Fund is not 'State' under the Constitution, usage of the domain name 'gov', the prime minister's photograph, state emblem, etc has to be stopped.

The petition said that the trustees of the fund are the prime minister, defence minister, home minister and finance minister and immediately after the formation of the fund, the Centre through its high government functionaries represented that the fund was set up and operated by the Government of India.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the plea has sought a direction for periodic auditing of PM CARES website and disclosure of the details of donations received by it.

In his alterative prayers, Gangwal has sought to direct the Centre to publicise that the PM CARES Fund is not a fund of the Government of India and to restrain PM CARES from using 'Prime Minister of India' or 'Prime Minister', including its abbreviations and name, on its website, Trust Deed and other official or unofficial communications and advertisements.

The petition challenges a June 2, 2020 order of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), PMO, refusing to provide documents sought by him on the ground that PM CARES Fund is not a public authority under the RTI Act.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 10,2024

gazajournalists.jpg

The media office in the Gaza Strip, where the Israeli regime has been waging a genocidal war since last October, says as many as 188 Palestinian journalists have been killed since the onset of the brutal military onslaught.

The office provided the figure on Saturday, naming four journalists as the most recent victims of the onslaught.

It identified the foursome as Zahraa Mohammad Abu Sukheil, Ahmad Mohammad Abu Sukheil, Mustafa Khadr Bahar, and Abdel Rahman Khadr Bahar.

The office said it “strongly condemns the targeting, killing, and assassination of Palestinian journalists by the Israeli occupation and holds it fully responsible for committing this heinous crime.”

“We call on the international community, international organizations, and those involved in journalistic work worldwide to take action against the occupation, pursue it in international courts for its ongoing crimes, and pressure it to halt the genocide and the targeted killings of Palestinian journalists,” it said.

Earlier in the day, the office said the Israeli regime had bombed the tents sheltering journalists and displaced persons at the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Hospital in the city of Deir al-Balah in central Gaza for the ninth consecutive time.

The atrocity that claimed the lives of two people and injured 26 others came as part of “the genocidal crimes committed by the Israeli occupation army against hospitals, civilians, and displaced persons,” it said.

The media office held the regime and the United States, its biggest ally, as well as other countries aiding the genocide fully responsible for such systematic crimes.

At least 43,552 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed and 102,765 others wounded since the launch of the war that followed a retaliatory operation by Gaza’s resistance groups.

The fatalities include 44 people, who were killed across the coastal sliver, in the most recent phase of the military onslaught.

As many as 24 of the victims were killed in the northern part of the territory, where the regime has markedly intensified its deadly attacks for weeks.

They included an eight-year-old child and a five-year-old one, who lost their lives after Israeli warplanes targeted a group of minors filling up jerry cans with water alongside their mother at the Jabalia Refugee camp.

Gaza’s heath ministry, meanwhile, said a number of victims remained under the rubble and in the streets following Israeli airstrikes, saying ambulances and civil defense teams could not reach them due to the sheer extent of the destruction caused by the raids and obstruction caused by the regime.

Also on Saturday, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report, a United Nations-backed assessment, warned that famine was looming in northern Gaza amid escalated Israeli aggression and the regime’s near-total siege of the targeted areas.

The alert from the Famine Review Committee warned of "an imminent and substantial likelihood of famine occurring, due to the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Gaza Strip."

On October 17, the body projected that the number of people in Gaza facing "catastrophic" food insecurity between November and April 2025 would reach 345,000, or 16 percent of the population.

The IPC report classified that figure as Phase 5 -- a situation when "starvation, death, destitution, and extremely critical acute malnutrition levels are evident."

The Israeli military, however, questioned the report's credibility.

"To date, all assessments by the IPC have proven incorrect and inconsistent with the situation on the ground," the army said in a statement, denouncing "partial, biased data and superficial sources with vested interests."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 14,2024

Bengaluru: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Thursday backed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over his claim that the BJP had offered Rs 50 crore each to 50 Congress MLAs in an attempt to "topple" the state government.

Addressing reporters here, Shivakumar, also the Congress state president, said, “The BJP indeed lured 50 Congress MLAs with Rs 50 crore each.”

He defended Siddaramaiah’s statement and said the Congress MLAs were briefed about the BJP’s alleged 'Operation Lotus', a term used to describe the BJP's attempts to destabilise ruling governments through horse-trading.

“Some of our MLAs informed the Chief Minister about this matter, and he, in turn, shared it with the media,” Shivakumar said.

At an event in Mysuru, Siddaramaiah reiterated the claim that "none of the Congress MLAs had accepted the offer".

He also accused the BJP of filing false cases against him in a bid to "remove him and overthrow his government".

The BJP has yet to respond to the allegations.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.