PM CARES: Review plea moved against SC verdict dismissing plea to transfer funds from PM CARES to NDRF

Petitioner in person, Mukesh Kumar, who was an intervenor in the plea seeking the transfer of funds from the PM CARES to National Disaster Relief Fund (NDRF), has filed a review petition against the Supreme Court judgment upholding the validity of PM CARES..While rendering the judgment, Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subshash Reddy and MR Shah had held that there was no need for a fresh national disaster relief plan for COVID-19 and that the minimum standards of relief as issued under the Disaster Management Act prior to COVID-19 were enough. .[Breaking] No need to transfer COVID-19 relief money from PM CARES Fund, no statutory prohibition on contributions to NDRF: Supreme Court.The Bench also clarified that the Centre will be free to transfer the funds to NDRF as it deems appropriate and that individuals are at liberty to donate to the NDRF..The review plea states that not only the PM CARES Fund, but also the creation of the PMNRF and CMRF are unconstitutional, unless they are created by way of a Parliamentary enactment to make the Prime Minister and other ministers as Trustees for the PMNRF fund or the Chief Minister of each State the Trustee of the CMRF concerned..MHA says existence of statutory fund like NDRF does not bar creation of PM CARES, lays down National Plan to contain COVID-19 before SC.The review plea also states that the moot question is: when a person is making voluntary contributions to an entity (be it PM CARES Fund, PMNRF or any NGO/ Society or Trust) towards a declared social cause, "whether such person/ contributor has right to seek information how his fund is being used for that public cause and also ascertain whether such service was done exclusively by his contribution by knowing information on entire collections made to that entity?".The plea states that institutions or autonomous bodies created after the commencement of the Constitution of India, 1950 need to be examined under the concerned Constitutional provisions. ."... the PM CARES Fund is run by the trusteeship of Council of Ministers themselves, without any statutory support under Article 53(3)(b) of the Constitution, and hence, there is no government agency involved for its scrutiny by CAG or transparency under RTI Act 2005, and it is being a private Trust, is also beyond Parliamentary control in terms of Rule 180B(ii) (Conditions of admissibility) of Rules of procedures and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), under Chapter – XIV (On Raising Matters of Public Importance), baring admissibility of any matter which is not primarily the concern of the Govt of India," states the review plea. .Kumar maintains that the creation of the PM CARES Fund is illegal, unconstitutional and hence, the August 18 judgment of the Supreme Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law..The Court had noted that there was no statutory prohibition as regards the government utilizing the NDRF towards COVID-19 relief nor was there any statutory prohibition on individuals or institutions from making a contribution towards the NDRF. .Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner for transferring all the funds collected in the PM CARES Fund to the NDRF was rejected by the Court. The Court said, ."Any contribution, grant of any individual or institution is not prohibited to be credited into the NDRF and it is still open for any person or institution to make contribution to the NDRF in terms of Section 46(1)(b) of the Act, 2005. The contribution by any person or by any institution in PM CARES Fund is voluntary and it is open for any person or institution to make contribution to the PM CARES Fund.".The Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that the NDRF is a statutory fund set up to assist States should their expenditure be in excess of the SDRF amount. This fund statutorily is required to be audited by the CAG. On the other hand, the PM CARES fund was set up as a public charitable trust when the COVID-19 pandemic hit India.."Voluntary" contributions to PM CARES Fund: A stone-hearted decision?.The review petition filed against this verdict also makes reference to a Delhi High Court verdict in 2018, where Justice Sunil Gaur, in a dissenting opinion, held that PMNRF is not a "public authority" for the purpose of section 2(h) of RTI Act 2005. ."Unfortunately, the case there did not touch upon the competence of creating PMNRF in terms of the Constitutional provision, and as such, the judgments similar to the one passed as impugned judgment dated 18.8.2020 will have "judicial force" to legitimize working of an authority like PM Cares Fund, PMNRF, CMRF, etc, which is otherwise not permitted under the Constitutional provisions," the review petitioner says..Use PM CARES and Contingency funds for Relief of Advocates: Bar Council of Delhi writes to PM Modi for grant of Rs 500 Crore aid