Supreme Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (Kamal Vijayvargiya vs. Union of India and Ors) in the Supreme Court questioning the legality of the PM CARES Fund.
Brief facts of the case
On March 28, the Centre set up the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund with the primary objective to deal with any kind of emergency, like the one currently posed by the COVID-19 outbreak and provide relief to those affected. The prime minister is the ex-officio chairman of the fund and the defence, home and finance ministers are its ex-officio trustees. The legality of formation of the PM CARES Fund without any ordinance or gazette notification by the Government of India was questioned through this petition. Also, the PIL, which has made all the trustees of the fund as well as the prime minister parties to it, has sought a transfer of the donations received so far in the fund to the Consolidated Fund of India, besides a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the setting up of the fund.
Arguments by the petitioner
The counsel (AOR) for the petitioner, Megha Karnwal contended that PM CARES could not come into existence because the power is only with Parliament under Article 266 & 267 to create contingency fund and that the Impugned Fund was illegal, as it was not created by statutory enactment.
Court’s View
A bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and justices L Nageswara Rao and MM Shantanagoudar heard the PIL filed by lawyer M L Sharma against the setting up of the PM CARES Fund in a hearing conducted through video conferencing.
The PIL stated that the trust had to be created under Articles 267 and 266(2), which deal with the contingency and Consolidated Funds of India, of the Constitution. And given that Impugned trust has not either been created by Parliament/state legislator within Article 267 and neither passed by Parliament nor approved by the President of India.
Chief Justice of India SA Bobde described the PIL filed, as “misconceived” and that the Impugned Fund was not about the collection of revenue. Further, the Bench did not agree to the contention of the lawyer that the fund has been created without following the schemes enumerated under Article 266 and 267 (which deal with the contingency and the Consolidated Funds of India) of the Constitution.
Court’s Decision
The Bench was not inclined to entertain the petition and the arguments advanced. The Supreme Court while dismissing the PIL warned the petitioner by saying that it will impose cost as this was a misconceived petition and asked the counsel to not argue further.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & 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.
