Supreme Court: Transfer PM CARES Funds to National Disaster Response Fund

Must Read

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Follow us

The case in hand is Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. UOI. On 17 June 2020, the SC issued a notice in a plea seeking the transfer of PM CARES Fund set up for COVID-19 relief to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF).

Brief Facts of the Case

Advocate Prashant Bhushan filed the petition on behalf of the Centre for Public Interest Litigation. The plea sought for the setting up of a National Plan under Section 10 and 11 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The aim was to deal with the current pandemic.

The Court issued a notice that directs the Centre to file its reply affidavit within a period of 4 weeks. The Bench consisted of Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul, and MR Shah.

Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner stated that the Centre can use the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) to fight against COVID-19 pandemic. Under Section 46(1)(b) of the DM Act 2005, all the contributions shall be credited to the NDRF instead of PM CARES Fund. Also, Section 72 of the DM Act has the provisions for anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.

The plea claimed that authorities are not utilising the NDRF. Additionally, it also pointed out the lack of transparency with regard to the PM CARES Fund. Since PM CARES Fund is outside the ambit of “public authority”, it is not subject to CAG Audits and is outside the purview of the RTI Act.

As a result, the petitioner prays for the contributions to the PM CARES Fund to be transferred to NDRF. This is so that the statutory provisions of the DM Act, 2005 are followed.

Court’s Observation

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre. The Court observed that the Centre did not submit the National Plan. To this, Mehta responded that the Plan “was on the website”.

Advocate Dushyant Dave represented the petitioner side. Dave abruptly said that “the Court was dictating what the respondent was dictating.”

Subsequently, Mehta countered this statement, saying, “This is contemptuous! Some courts have to take cognisance of this behaviour.”

As a result, the Bench then said, “You cannot say this. We are issuing the notice. Let the counter be filed.”

Court’s Order

The Court directed the Centre to respond on the prayer seeking for transfer of funds from PM CARES Fund to NDRF. Additionally, they posted the next hearing of the case after 4 weeks.


Libertatem.in 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

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -