PMO: PM CARES Fund Not a “Public Authority” Under RTI: Is it a Suspicious Action of the Government?

Must Read

An Illummination of the Home Ministry’s Commission for Revision of Penal Laws

The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860. It was formed after the draft was created by the first...

Political Parties and the Affair of Symbols

Introduction A political party is a group of people with the same ideology, intention, and agenda who try to hold power through...

Withdrawal of Judges in light of the Principle of “Nemo Judex In Causa Sua”: An Analysis

"Justice, and the arrival of that justice being delivered, is essential to the protection of the guideline of thumb of law. Justice implies - consistency, in technique and result...

Explained: The Scope of Article 21 During the Era of COVID-19

“One’s right to self, their body, their health, and their livelihoods is inherent to living a meaningful human life, Human...

Explained: Events That Led To the 2020 Rajasthan Political Crisis

The government has been toppled in the state of Rajasthan, following which petitions have been filed in the High...

How Gorakhpur Doctor Kafeel Khan’s Hate Speech Threatened the National Security of India

Dr Kafeel Khan has recently been released from the Mathura Jail after the Allahabad HC sets aside his detention...

Follow us

An RTI was filed seeking the details of PM CARES fund. In response the PMO stated PM CARES does not come under the ambit of “Public Authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.


Considering the ongoing crisis due to the pandemic, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) saw invocation. Thus, on March 28th 2020 Modi government announced Prime Minister’s Citizen Help and Relief in Emergency Situation (PM CARES) Fund which accepted donations to fight the pandemic.

As a result of the confusion, an RTI filed to seek details of the fund and creation of PM CARES when PMNRF already existed. The RTI application questioned the following:

1) The total sum collected in the fund to date 

2) Amount collected by the fund in the previous two months

3) The PAN details provided to open the PM CARES Fund.

4) Details of the total sum of money spent on PM CARES Fund until today and;

5) The details of the person known to have deposited the highest amount to the fund. 

Who filed the RTI application?

The Right to Information (RTI) filed by Harsha Kandukuri, a law student from Azim Premji University, Bangalore. Kandukuri, in filing the RTI application sought details of constituting PM CARES when PMNRF already existed. Furthermore, he asked for the fund’s trust deed copies and some government orders related to the creation and functioning of the fund. 

In response to this RTI application, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) stated that under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI, 2005; PM CARES is not a “public authority”. Nonetheless, PMO also stated that relevant information concerning the fund is available on the website According to a report released by Live Law, no such information was available on the site. 

What is a Public Authority under RTI? 

The scope of “public authority” is under Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005. A public authority under RTI is an authority or a body or can even be an institution recognized or constituted:

1) By or under the Constitution of India

2) Or by any other law enacted by the parliament.

3) By any law prepared by the state legislature.

4) By issuance of an order or notification made by the appropriate government.

Timeline of Events 

Early 2012

Mr Aseem Takyar files an RTI seeking details of donors and beneficiaries to the PMNRF from 2009 to 2011. The fund denied information and stated it does not come under the domain of public interest and can also cause “unwarranted invasion” to the privacy of donor and beneficiaries.

June 24th 2012

Finally, after making many appeals against the denial of information by the PMNRF, Takyar urged for transparency in the working of PMNRF and approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for the same. Therefore, in line with the views put forth by Takyar, CIC stated that details of the institutional donors should be public. Yet, it did not support the idea of disclosing the details of public beneficiaries.

Late 2012

Following the decision of the CIC, an appeal made by PMNRF stated where they placed the contention about them being not liable in to disclose the information about the donors and the beneficiary as PMNRF doesn’t come under the domain of “public authority”.

May 21st 2018

The judgment delivered on the matter pointed out that both the judges had different opinions on the issue. Justice Ravindra Bhat stated that PMNRF comes under the ambit of “public authority” and the same should be subject to public scrutiny. But, Justice Sunil Gaur gave a dissenting opinion by stating PMNRF does not fall under the domain of “public authority” and thus, it cannot share any kind of information. 

September 12th 2018

After the dissenting opinion in the judgment, Chief Justice of Delhi High Court asked to refer the matter to a third judge, and the same is on the list for hearing on July 15th 2020.

Questions raised by Significant Personalities on PM-CARES 

  • Sonia Gandhi- In her letter to the Prime Minister, stated that all the funds raised by way of PM CARES should immediately be transferred to PMNRF to safeguard competency, responsibility, transparency, efficiency and audit in the manner these funds were allotted and the way they are being spent. 
  • Aseem Takyar- Activist Aseem Takyar stated he would file an RTI to seek information about PM CARES so that transparency and accountability can be ensured.
  • HuffPost India- HuffPost India, an online legal portal, questioned the Modi government if at all it is planning to disclose the details of the donors and the beneficiaries of PM CARES. If the government anticipates a response  to this query, the portal needs to have all the required information.

Author’s Note: Suspicions of the likelihood of a Scam 

In the recent events where the status of “public authority” has been denied to PM CARES, there can be a reasonable inference drawn to the fact that it is not controlled by the government of India. Consequently, the critical question which arises here is- then who is controlling it? 

Furthermore, the public is unaware of many important aspects like the functioning of the trust, decision-making process in addition to the faith, measures taken to safeguard the fund and to give assurance that the fund is not misused so far. The public doesn’t know the answer to any of these questions. Hence, this acts as a big blow to transparency in working and upholding democratic values. 

Thus, dragging the attention of the public to the ongoing controversy shows that there exists a dire need to address such matters. Merely stating the fact that PM CARES does not fall under “Public Authority” is not a solution to the problem. Furthermore, many events, like the name, configuration of the trust, domain name of the government, suggest that the fund be a public authority. But the government continues to deny this fact and therefore, continues to build a wall of secrecy around the working of PM CARES. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -