IS P.M.C.A.R.E.S. FUND UNDER THE RTI ACT OR NOT?

 

WHAT IS P.M.C.A.R.E.S.FUND

The P.M.C.A.R.E.S.fund is a public charitable fund and an emergency fund based on a voluntary contribution that comes from an individual or any organization and it stands for Prime Minister Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency.

 

MEMBERS AND MOTIVE OF THE FUND

The Chairperson of this fund is the Prime Minister of India and the other members are the home minister, defense minister, and finance minister. It is also called a relief fund which is announced by our P.M. on 28 March 2020 for the relief of affected people in COVID-19 disease.

 

ADVANTAGES /RULES OF DONATION

A Donor can get a 100% exemption from income tax

In Company Act it is an expenditure of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)

Audited by an independent auditor appointed by trustees.

 

IS THE FUND UNDER RTI ACT OR NOT

As everyone knows under the RTI Act any citizen has a right to know about the public authority. In 2018 RTI was filed to know about the PMNRF (Prime Minister National Relief Fund) but it is also pending. If the P.M.C.A.R.E.S fund is under the RTI Act anyone can want to know about the activity of this fund. But it is said that P.M.C.A.R.E.S.fund is not under the RTI Act. But many shreds of evidence say that this fund should be under an RTI Act. The shreds of evidence are:-

The P.M.C.A.R.E.S.fund was set up by our Central Government and it is controlled under P.M. in the PM Office.

Government Machinery is used to promote the P.M.C.A.R.E.S. fund.

Usage of ‘Gov. in’ in its domain.

Tax exemption relates to P.M.C.A.R.E.S.donation.

PMCARES fund is eligible for CSR funds.

For these reasons many controversies have seemed to want to say that P.M.C.A.R.E.S.fund should be under public authority as well as under an RTI Act.

 

IS C.I.D. UNDER RTI ACT?

There is a controversy about the information that the C.I.D. fall under the RTI act or not? As the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) falls under the Intelligence and Security Organisation, it should be exempted from the RTI act. But in August 2018 a police officer named Lavakumar filed an RTI to seek information about expenses incurred by officers during the investigation of a murder in Karwar in 2000. The CID refused to disclose the information but a bench headed by L. Krishnamurthy stated that the CID is not an intelligence or security organization and the information did not relate to the investigation. So, the CID should disclose the information. It was the incident of Karnataka.

So, the information under the CID may be or may not be disclosed. It depends on the types of the required information. If the required information breaks the security or safety it must be disclosed.

 

CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA (C.J.I), PART OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER RTI ACT

 

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court has ruled that the office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the RTI Act. A Constitution Bench made of five judges headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi gave the ruling. Other members are NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna.

 

HISTORY

Subhash Agarwal in 2009 filed an RTI to get information that all Supreme Court judges had declared their assets and liabilities to the CJI for the declaration of resolution 1997. The CPIO of the Supreme Court did not order the disclosure of the information.

Then Subhash went to CIC who directed him to disclose the information. The Supreme Court met Delhi High Court against the CIC order. The High Court held on 2 September 2009 that the office of CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and is covered by its provision. Then the Supreme Court approached the larger bench of three judges. In January 2010 the larger bench passed its judgment and ordered that the order of the single judge bench be proper and valid and need no interference.

 

FINAL JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court is a public authority and the office of CJI is the part of the Supreme Court. So, the CJI office of the Supreme Court exists within the ambit of the RTI Act. This order was established on 13 November 2019 but confidentiality and privacy will be maintained. Sanjiv Khanna declared that the personal information of judges should be revealed if there is a larger public interest.

 

FOR ANY PRIVATE ORGANISATION

As private organizations do not fall under public authority, none can file RTI directly to ask for any information about those organizations but filing RTI can never solve any problem which relates to a private organization? So, this case also belongs to controversy.

There are many types of solutions in these cases like if we have education-related queries about any private organization then we can file RTI through the RTE act; as the RTE act falls under the constitution and address to the govt. the authority under which the institution is registered or to the govt. dept. which controls the organization.

NGO is also a non-govt. organization but if an NGO is substantially financed by the govt. anyone can file RTI to get any information about it (NGO)

In the same way, one can file RTI to get any information about any private company, as any type of company falls under the company act which is included in the constitution and the applicant should address the ministry of the corporation. So, one can file RTI through this act to get any private company-related information.

So, it is important which types of information about a private company one has wanted and the applicant should file indirectly i.e. through any govt. act. If the applicant can show the proper cause then the information must be disclosed but according to the CIC if the required information is personal then the information will be exempted.

 

AMENDMENT OF RTI ACT

The termination, salaries, allowance, terms, and conditions of CIC and ICs are notified by the Central Government.

 

ROLES OF RTI ACT

RTI Act is one type of weapon for the citizens to know about the information on the basis of government work so that they come to know that our government follows democracy or not; they use their power properly or not and how the government takes responsibilities for citizens by the constitutional system of India.

The proof in the form of the application will be records, memos, documents, emails, opinions, advice, press releases, orders, logbooks, contracts.

 

LIMITATION

As we know an applicant can apply RTI finally to the Chief Information Commissioner, citizens should know about CIC’s appointment. In this act, CIC and ICs are appointed by the president of India but recommended by

The prime minister acts as chairperson.

The leader of the opposition party in the lower house of the Indian parliament.

Union cabinet ministers who are nominated by the P.M.

So, it can be said that CIC and ICs are controlled by the central government.

The termination, salaries, allowance, terms, and conditions of CIC and ICs are notified by the Central Government i.e. CIC is totally controlled by the Central Government that may prevent the publication of any information against the Central Government.

So it can be said that CIC and ICs are controlled by the central government.

 

CONCLUSION

From the above discussion, it is concluded that citizens can use the RTI act as an instrument, not an empowerment i.e. citizens should use it properly and should avoid misuse. On the other hand, citizens may not get any information against the government or its want for the amendment of the RTI Act in 2019. Therefore a big controversy is created overall the subjects given above.

 

CONTROVERSY CASE UNDER THE RTI ACT

An RTI was filed to get information from the Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) but the application got rejected even the second appeal also had been rejected by the CIC because the required information falls under section 24 of the RTI act.

The applicant claimed that the required information is relevant to allegations of human rights violations but the CIC opposed the claim and a controversy appeared from here. From the controversy, it was revealed that the petitioner was arrested in relation to the Mumbai Train Blast case but the petitioner claimed that an organization named Indian Mujahideen was involved in Ahmedabad blast in 2008, Delhi blast in 2008, and Hyderabad blast in 2007 and also involved in Mumbai Train blast case and the I.B. collected the information about the involvement of Indian Mujahideen from various agencies and prepared a report which was placed before the home minister. The petitioner was convicted by a judgment of the Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). So, the applicant wanted the true copy of the report which was made by I.B. and was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs. But the CPIO, CIC refused to disclose the information.