SC Refuses to Transfer Money From PM Cares to National Disaster Relief Fund

Must Read

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner....

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Follow us

The Full Bench comprised of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice M.R Shah, that held that there is no prohibition on any contribution to the NDRF. Also, the two funds are different, hence a transfer of money from one to the other is not possible.

Brief facts of the case

The Disaster Management Act, 2005 (“the Act”) was enacted to bring requisite institutional mechanisms for drawing up and monitoring the implementation of the Disaster Management Plans. It was also aimed at providing measures for preventing and mitigating the effects of disasters.

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. It seeks to direct the government to install a National Plan under Section 11 read with Section 10 of the Act. This is to deal with the current pandemic (Covid-19) and to lay standard measures of relief to persons affected with COVID-19. 

It also seeks permission to use the National Disaster Response Fund (“NDRF”) to assist in the fight against COVID-19. And to credit, all the contributions or grants received in NDRF instead of PM CARES Fund. Additionally, all funds collected in PM CARES Fund to date should be directed to be transferred to NDRF.

Petitioners’ Arguments

National Plan under Section 11 of the Act has been framed in November 2019. But the said Plan is neither comprehensive nor covers the management of pandemic, i.e., COVID-19.

Moreover, all the contributions made by the individuals and institutions about COVID-19 are being credited into the PM CARES Fund and not in NDRF. This is a clear violation of Section 46 of the Act, 2005. Also, the NDRF is subject to CAG Audit and PM CARES Fund is not subject to CAG Audit.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Act provides for a broad framework of the response to be provided in pursuance to a National Plan in case of any disaster. That National Plan is not a document that contains the microscopic details on the day to day management of the issues arising out of different disasters.

Court’s View

The court opined that there was no need for a fresh National Disaster Management Plan, for COVID-19. COVID-19 being a Biological and Public Health Emergency, it has been covered by National Plan, 2019. This is supplemented by various plans, guidelines, and measures. That said, there is no lack or dearth of plans and procedures to deal with COVID-19. All aspects of the epidemics, all measures to contain an epidemic, preparedness, response, mitigation have been dealt in the Plan, 2019.

Section 12 of the Act already provides for guidelines for relief measures in place, even before COVID-19. There is no need for further small reliefs in the wake of COVID-19.

The Court stated that the PM CARES Fund has been constituted as a “public charitable trust”. After the outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the need of having a dedicated national fund with the aim of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the COVID-19. The PM CARES Fund consists of voluntary contributions and does not get any budgetary support. And no government money is credited in the PM CARES Fund.

The Court stated that the nature of NDRF and PM CARES Fund is different. The guidelines issued under the Act for NDRF provides for its audit by the CAG of India. But for public charitable trust (PM CARES) there is no occasion for audit by the CAG.

Court’s Decision

The Court said that there is no occasion nor need for issuing any direction to transfer the funds in the PM CARES to the NDRF.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. This writ is filed by...

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -