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
December 25,2024

ctravi.jpg

Bengaluru: Police Inspector of Khanapur station has been suspended for dereliction of duty by allegedly letting in political leaders and others inside the station while BJP MLC C T Ravi was in custody in connection with a case registered against him, officials said on Wednesday.

The suspension order was issued by the office of Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Belagavi on December 21, they said.

On December 19, Ravi was arrested by the police from the premises of Suvarna Vidhana Soudha in Belagavi for allegedly using a derogatory word against Minister Laxmi Hebbalkar in the legislative council hall.

According to the official order, when C T Ravi was taken to Khanapura police station for safety reasons, Police Inspector Manjunath Nayak, who was in-charge of the station, was told to use the staff and assign suitable duties to them.

It was also ordered to block the entry of any person other than the accused inside the police station. However, many political leaders and mediapersons stormed inside the police station. This created a noisy atmosphere inside the station, it stated.

The order further stated that as a responsible police inspector grade officer, Nayak failed to prevent several political leaders from entering Khanapur Police station, thus creating a tumultuous atmosphere.

He violated the order of superiors, showed negligence and carelessness while performing duty. Therefore, a departmental inquiry was initiated and Nayak was suspended from service with immediate effect for dereliction of duty, the order stated.

According to a police statement issued on Wednesday, after registration of case under section 75 (sexual harassment) and 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in Hirebagewadi police station here, Ravi was taken into custody and handed over to the investigating officers.

However, Ravi was shifted to Khanapura police station considering the security aspect and the huge crowd gathered near Hirebagewadi police station.

"A large number of mediapersons, supporters and party workers gathered and created a chaotic atmosphere in Khanapura police station. There was also the possibility of additional supporters and Congress workers arriving. All these factors also had the potential to disrupt public order," the police stated.

Keeping in mind Ravi's safety, he was shifted to Ramadurga, it said.

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
December 16,2024

The Supreme Court on Monday while hearing a petition against the stand of Karnataka High Court's view that shouting 'Jai Sriram' inside a mosque was not an offence, sought the stand of the State of Karnataka in the matter.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter.

"Alright, they were shouting a particular religious slogan. How is that an offence?" Justice Mehta asked, as bench posted the matter for January 2025.

The bench asked if the accused persons had been identified. Kamat replied that CCT visuals had been collected and the police identified the accused persons, as recorded in the remand report. The bench asked if merely spotting the accused near the mosque would mean that they shouted the slogans.

"Are you able to identify the actual accused? What material you have brought?" the Court asked. Kamat clarified that he was only representing the complainant (caretaker of the mosque) and it is for the police to conduct the investigation and collect the evidence. The FIR need only give information about the offence and need not be an 'encyclopedia' containing all evidence, he added.

This comes after a petition was filed in the Supreme Court questioning the Karnataka High Court's order of September 13, 2024 which quashed an FIR lodged against two men for raising the 'Jai Shri Ram' slogan within mosque premises.

The high court's single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had said, "It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Shri Ram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class, when the complainant himself states that Hindu - Muslims are living in harmony in the area".

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
December 23,2024

modihasina.jpg

Dhaka: Bangladesh's interim government said on Monday that it has sent a diplomatic note to India to send back deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina to Dhaka.

Hasina, 77, has been living in exile in India since Aug 5 when she fled the country amid the student-led protests that toppled her 16-year regime. Dhaka-based International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has issued arrest warrants for Hasina and several former Cabinet ministers, advisers, and military and civil officials for "crimes against humanity and genocide".

“We have sent a note verbale (diplomatic message) to the Indian government saying that Bangladesh wants her back here for the judicial process,” Foreign Affairs Adviser or de facto foreign minister Touhid Hossain told reporters at his office.

Earlier in the morning, Home Advisor Jahangir Alam said his office has sent a letter to the foreign ministry to facilitate the ousted premier's extradition from India.

“We have sent a letter to the foreign ministry regarding her extradition. The process is currently underway,” he told reporters in response to a query.

Alam said an extradition treaty between Dhaka and New Delhi already exists and Hasina could be brought back to Bangladesh under the treaty.

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.