Contributions Made To The Fund Are Voluntary, No Compulsion For Anyone To Donate; Bombay HC Dismisses Advocate's PIL Seeking Public Declaration Of PM Cares Fund [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Arvind Waghmare seeking public declaration of money received for PM Care's Fund observing that the contributions made to the said Fund are voluntary in nature and there is no compulsion on anyone to donate. Division bench of Justice SB Shukre and Justice AS Kilor of the Nagpur bench noted that if any person has any doubt about the application of the money, he/she intends to donate to the said fund, they may be reminded of the words of Falstaff, a cowardly character in William Shakespeare's play Henry IV, "The better part of Valour is Discretion; in the which better part, I have saved my life". Referring to the above lines, Court said- "Here "life" can be taken to be "money". So, such a person would well be within his right to not donate his money to the fund. From this perspective also no insistence can be made by a person donating his money in his discretion upon making public disclosures of utilization of the fund money on a public platform bypassing the proper platform provided under the Trust Act applicable to a charitable trust like the "PM CARES Fund"." The petitioner made it clear in the petition that he does not challenge and dispute the creation of the PM CARES Fund on any ground, constitutional or otherwise but, he is only concerned about what he considers to be the 'presence of an element of seclusion in the fund in its functional and operational dynamics.' Moreover, Adv Waghmare, who appeared in person, submitted that as a citizen of India as well as a small donor to the PM CARES Fund, he has every right to know exact position of the account of the fund and as to why all the trustees on the Board of Trustees as per the scheme of the fund have not been nominated by the Chairperson of the fund. Waghmare contended that nomination of all the trustees on the Board is essential for the fund to operate equitably, and fairly, in the interest of welfare of the beneficiaries for whose assistance the fund has been set up. Moreover, the members to be appointed on the Board of Trustees must also include two persons of eminence belonging to opposite political parties, which provision, not expressly made in the scheme of the fund, needs to be incorporated, the petitioner submitted. Whereas, ASG Anil Singh appeared on behalf of PM Cares Fund and Union of India. He submitted that as few more petitions involving more or less similar issues were pending adjudication before the Supreme Court and he sought to incorporate in the reply, the decisions of the Apex Court, one of which came recently in Center for Public Interest Litigation V/s. Union of India, decided on August 18, 2020. Moreover, ASG Singh told the Court that copies of all the decisions which, in his opinion, would render assistance to this Court, have already been filed on record by him. These decisions are in the following cases- Shashwat Anand and others V/s. Union of India and others, Manohar Lal Sharma V/s. Narender and others and Center for Public Interest Litigation V/s. Union of India. To this, the bench said- "Considering the fact that copies of the orders and judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India now have been filed on record and also that learned A.S.G.I. through his oral submissions made elaborately has adequately assisted us, we no longer experience any handicap in finally deciding the petition on merits, even without formal reply filed on behalf of the Union of India." Calling it a publicity interest litigation with underlying political agenda, ASG Singh urged that the said PIL is not maintainable. Improper intention of the petitioner can be gauged from the fact that just in order to make a show of the petitioner having locus standi in the matter, the petitioner paid donation of Rs.1,001 by cheque dated May 8 and immediately on the next day of May 9, 2020 the petitioner filed this public interest litigation petition, Singh told the Court. According to him, the petitioner has no locus standi for the reason that he is a donor to the fund and not the beneficiary of the fund and that it is the beneficiary of the fund who could be said to be a person aggrieved if any action or inaction on the part of the Trustees is considered by him as against law, object of the Trust or welfare of the beneficiaries. In response to questions raised about the intent of the petitioner and his locus standi raised by ASG Singh, the bench said- "We are, however, of the view that it is not necessary for us to go into these aspects of the matter for two reasons. Firstly, there is hardly any material placed on record to discern the improper intention on the part of the petitioner in person and though the petition has been filed just on the next day of the petitioner remitting the donation of Rs.1,001/- through cheque, this fact by itself would not be sufficient to attribute any...

Contributions Made To The Fund Are Voluntary, No Compulsion For Anyone To Donate; Bombay HC Dismisses Advocate's PIL Seeking Public Declaration Of PM Cares Fund [Read Judgment]

Nitish Kashyap

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nitish Kashyap

Contributions Made To The Fund Are Voluntary, No Compulsion For Anyone To Donate; Bombay HC Dismisses Advocate's PIL Seeking Public Declaration Of PM Cares Fund [Read Judgment]

Nitish Kashyap

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nitish Kashyap

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers