Central Information Commission
Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal vs Prime Minister'S Office on 4 March, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2022/661068
Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Prime Minister's Office ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.02.2024
Date of Decision : 04.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.06.2022
PIO replied on : 21.06.2022
First Appeal filed on : 14.07.2022
First Appellate Order on : 11.08.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 21.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.06.2022 seeking information on fifteen points some of which are as under:-
"1. Please provide the details of advertisement of PM CARE Fund, as existing on the date of reply to the present RTI Application.
2. Please provide the details how many times President of India and his office have appealed for donation of PM CARE Fund.
3. Please provide how the details many times Prime Minister of India and his office have appealed for donation of PM CARE Fund.
4. Please provide the details how many respective Minister and their Ministries of central government and respective State Governments have appealed for donation of PM CARE Fund.
5. With respect to points 2,3 and 4, please provide the mode and manner in which the appeals were made, and the amount of expenditure incurred thereupon. Etc."
The CPIO vide letter dated 21.06.2022 replied as under:-
"PM CARES Fund is not a Public Authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, relevant information in respect of PM CARES Fund may be seen on the Website-pmcares.gov.in."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated 11.08.2022 held as under:-
Page 1 of 4"I have examined the records in the matter. On perusal of records, it is held that information provided in respect of your RTI application are as per available records. Since PM CARES Fund is not a Public Authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of The RTI Act, 2005, no further information could be shared with you. However, as already apprised to you, other relevant information in respect of PM CARES Fund is available on the website www.pmcares.gov.in."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present with Kr. Mudlidhar Respondent: Shri Binod Behari Singh - US was present during the hearing through video conference.
The Appellant contended that information sought by him pertained to the PM Cares Fund and has been wrongly denied to him. He objected to the fact that the First Appellate Authority decided the First Appeal without granting an opportunity of hearing, simply on the basis of records. Respondent averred that relevant information about the PM CARES Fund has already been published on the website and hence is in public domain.
The Appellant stated that he was aggrieved by the response sent by the PIO and the FAA and hence sought time to file his written submission. The written submission dated 24.02.2024 filed by him contains the following pointers:
• Firstly, as per Article 52 of Indian Constitution the President of India is a constitutional authority and under Article 74 of Indian Constitution the Council of ministers headed by the Prime minister is a constitutional authority as well. This clearly makes them fall under the ambit of section 2(h) of RTI by even their admitted position of PMO as per reply in RTI/4711/2022-PMR that they can only provide replies for the public authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of RTI Act. Then how come the reply of question number 2-15 has not been provided by concerned Information officers till date?
• Secondly, it is pertinent to mention that the PM CARE FUNDS, which is a registered Trust, consists of PM Minister as ex officio chairman, and three senior most cabinet ministers as Trustees. However as per reply in RTI/4711/2022-PMR as per PMO the institution is not considered as a public authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of RTI Act. There has not been any cogent reason attached by the PMO as how they came to the conclusion that what shall construe to be a "public authority" under the Section 2(h) of RTI Act. As the list comes under Section 2(h) is very exhaustive and it encompasses even non-governmental organization which is directly or indirectly financed by the government. There has not been any mentioning on financial contribution part which was specifically asked in the original RTI application.
• Thirdly, In the same breath if they are not a "public authority", there has not been any mentioning of how domain name "gov.in" is being Page 2 of 4 allotted to PM CARE which is totally contrary to guidelines as under F. No. L -13/14/2014-IGD dated 23-10-2019 issued by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) (See attachment). There has been no explanation that how use of state emblem "Sarnath Lion Capitol" on the website is not a violation of State emblem of India (regulation of use) Rules 2007 and under what provision its office is situated in PMO South block despite not being a "Public Authority" as PMO is maintained under the consolidated fund of India as under Article 266 of Indian Constitution.
Decision:
Upon examining the records submitted by both parties and hearing their respective averments it is evident that the before deciding the instant appeal on merits, the primary question to be decided is the status of the Fund in question. The issue as to whether the PM CARES Fund is a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is pending adjudication before the Division Bench of the Chief Justice at the Delhi High Court as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3430/2020. Similar arguments as stated by the Appellant in this case, form part of the pleadings in the aforementioned case, which is sub judice before the Delhi High Court.
The Commission takes cognisance of the various contentions placed forth by the Appellant. However, it is pertinent to refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 546/2020 titled Centre for Public Interest Litigation versus Union of India on this issue, wherein after a detailed scrutiny of various details about the PM CARES Fund, the Apex Court vide decision dated 18.08.2020 had held as follows:
"...59. From the above details, it is clear that PM CARES Fund has been constituted as a public charitable trust. After outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, need of having a dedicated national fund with objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected, a fund was created by constituting a trust with Prime Minister as an ex- officio Chairman of PM CARES Fund, with other ex- officio and nominated Trustees of the Fund. The PM CARES Fund consists entirely of voluntary contributions from individuals/organisations and does not get any Budgetary support. No Government money is credited in the PM CARES Fund. ......................
69. The contributions made by individuals and institutions in the PM CARES Fund are to be released for public purpose to fulfill the objective of the trust. The PM CARES Fund is a charitable trust registered under the Registration Act, 1908 at New Delhi on 27.03.2020. The trust does not receive any Budgetary support or any Government money.
Perusal of the records of the appeal also reveals that the PIO had vide reply dated in these appeals vide reply dated 21.06.2022 duly informed the Appellant of the factual position stating: relevant information in respect of PM CARES Fund may be seen on the website-pmcares.gov.in.
Page 3 of 4In the light of the aforementioned factual position, the Commission finds that response sent by the Respondent is appropriate and requires no further intervention, at this stage, under the RTI Act.
The instant appeal is thus disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4