Automatic Deposit Of Uncashed Electoral Bonds Contrary To PMNRF's Claim Of Accepting Only ‘Voluntary Donations’: Plea In Delhi High Court

In a pending case related to the status of Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF) under the RTI Act, an application has been moved in Delhi High Court stating that automatic deposit of amounts of electoral bonds, which are not encashed within the statutory period of 15 days, in the fund cannot be termed as “voluntary donations" and thus, the Trust cannot claim it only accepts “voluntary funds.”Lokesh K. Batra, a retired navy officer, has filed an application seeking intervention in an appeal pending since 2016 for deciding the question if the fund is a “public authority” under section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.One of the grounds in the application relates to the automatic deposit of amounts of electoral bonds. While Batra's application mainly seeks directions for disclosure of the information under RTI Act, he had also sought recommendations from the Central Information Commission (CIC) for clarification or amendment to the claims made by the PMNRF.The website of PMNRF states that the fund consists entirely of public contributions and does not get any budgetary support. “The PMNRF accepts voluntary contributions from Individuals, Organizations, Trusts, Companies and Institutions etc,” it adds. The intervention application, moved through Advocates Prasanna S, Swati Arya and Yuvraj Singh Rathore states that Section 12(2) of Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 provides that “the amount of bonds not encashed within the validity period of fifteen days shall be deposited by the authorised bank to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.”CIC Order and Observations of Single JudgeThe genesis of the case is an RTI application moved by one Aseem Takyar to the CPIO of Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking information pertaining to various transactions made in PMNRF during the financial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. While providing some information, the CPIO invoked exemption under section 8(l)(j) of the RTI Act, as the information related to amount, name and particular of each recipient and beneficiary.In its final order, CIC had directed the CPIO to place details of institutional donors of PMNRF in public domain and to disclose the information to the petitioner.A writ petition was then filed by the fund challenging the CIC order. Finding the impugned order as balanced, the single judge dismissed the appeal on November 10, 2015. However, it refrained from giving a conclusive finding as to whether PMNRf was a public authority. Aggrieved by the single judge’s decision, the Fund filed the appeal.Due to difference of opinion, a division bench on May 23, 2018 referred the matter to be decided by a third judge (single judge). While Justice Ravindra Bhat was of the view that there exists governmental control in the management of PMNRF and held it to be a public authority within the scope of RTI Act, Justice Sunil Gaur dissented and observed otherwise.The appeal is presently being heard by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait. On January 20, the single judge ordered that Batra’s intervention application be listed before a division bench, subject to orders of Chief Justice on July 21.Batra’s RTI Application and CIC OrderBatra filed a RTI application in 2020 seeking various details about PMNRF which were not available on the online platform. He sought complete list of files held in records of Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on which the fund’s creation was discussed and processed and notings where it was declared as a “trust” by Income Tax Authorities. The CPIO of PMO failed to respond to the RTI application within 30 days. Finally, after a lapse of 40 days, Batra approached first appellate authority which directed the CPIO to give a final response in 25 days. Since no response was filed even after the direction of first appellate body, a second appeal was filed before Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking information under RTI application and also for imposing maximum penalties on the concerned authorities for delay.During the pendency of second appeal, the CPIO of PMO responded on October 28, 2020, stating that the PMNRF is not a public authority under RTI Act and that relevant information regarding the fund may be seen on the official website. Batra argued that CPIO’s response is “unsatisfactory and unreasonable” as it simply stated that the fund did not fall within the ambit of being a public authority. According to Batra, the CPIO did not explain the “abnormal and irregular delay” of almost 6 months in filing a “vague, ambiguous and unsatisfactory” one paragraph response. Later, in June 15, 2022, Batra filed brief written submissions before CIC updating the grounds and arguments, bringing the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 to its notice.It was submitted that the 2018 scheme is “completely inconsistent” with the stand of PMNRF that it only accepts “voluntary funds” by individuals and associations.In this backdrop, Lokesh requested that information be provided to him under his RTI application and to also make recommendation...

Automatic Deposit Of Uncashed Electoral Bonds Contrary To PMNRF's Claim Of Accepting Only ‘Voluntary Donations’: Plea In Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Automatic Deposit Of Uncashed Electoral Bonds Contrary To PMNRF's Claim Of Accepting Only ‘Voluntary Donations’: Plea In Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers