Delhi High Court to hear pleas over legal status of PM CARES fund on January 31

September 16, 2022 09:32 pm | Updated 09:32 pm IST

The Delhi High Court on Friday listed for hearing on January 31 pleas concerning the legal status of the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund) under the Constitution and the Right to Information Act.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also granted four weeks’ time to the Centre to file its reply in the matter in terms of an earlier order passed by the court.

In July, the court had asked the Centre to file a “detailed and exhaustive” reply on the petition by Samyak Gangwal seeking to declare the PM CARES Fund a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution to ensure transparency in its functioning.

The court had then noted that only a one-page reply was filed to such an “important issue” and said it wanted an extensive response by the government. Another petition filed by the same petitioner seeks to declare the fund a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It is also pending in the court which had earlier sought the Centre’s reply on it.

An affidavit filed by an Under Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) who is discharging his functions in the PM Cares Trust on an honorary basis in response to the 2021 petition, has said the trust functions with transparency and its funds are audited by an auditor -- a chartered accountant drawn from the panel prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

It has contended that irrespective of the status of the PM CARES Fund under the Constitution and the RTI Act, it is not permissible to disclose third party information.

The Centre has said that all donations received by the trust are received via online payments, cheques or demand drafts and the amount received is audited with the audited report and the expenditure of the trust fund displayed on the website.

The officer, who had filed the affidavit, has also said he was discharging his functions in the PM CARES Trust on an honorary basis which was a charitable trust not created by or under the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament or by any State legislature.

In support of his contention that the PM CARES Fund is a ‘State’, the petitioner has said it was formed by the Prime Minister on March 27, 2020 to extend assistance to the citizens of India in the wake of COVID-19.

The trustees of the fund are the prime minister, defence minister, home minister and the finance minister and immediately after the formation of the fund, the Centre through its high government functionaries represented that the fund was set up and operated by the Government of India, the petitioner has submitted.

“The representations also included the use of government resources such as- use of “http://gov.in”gov.in’ domain name, State Emblem of India and the name ‘Prime Minister’ and its abbreviation on the PM Cares Fund website and in other official and unofficial communications. “Further, the official address of the PM CARES Fund was stated to be the Prime Minister’s Office South Block, New Delhi…,” the petition has said.

Based on these representations, huge donations were received by the PM CARES Fund and as per the information provided on its website during the financial year 2019-20, an amount of ₹3076.62 crore was collected merely within four days, it has submitted.

“The petitioner is not attributing or even alleging any wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of the present Ex-Officio trustees of the PM CARES Fund. However, since the PM CARES Fund’s trustees are high government functionaries, it is essential that checks and balances envisioned in Part III of the Constitution are put in the place on the functioning of the fund to extinguish any chance of an allegation of ‘quid pro quo’,” the plea has said.

Criminalisation of marital rape | Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response 

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the government on appeals to criminalise marital rape. A Bench led by Justice Ajay Rastogi indicated that several similar petitions were also pending in the apex court and they would be listed together for hearing in February next year.

The appeals follow a split decision from the Delhi High Court on whether or not to prosecute husbands for non-consensual sex with their wives. During the brief hearing, All India Democratic Women’s Association, represented by advocate Karuna Nundy, said both judges in the Bench in the Delhi High Court had agreed that the case raised a substantial question of law which required an authoritative ruling from the Supreme Court.

The issue focuses on the exception in rape law in the Indian Penal Code which dismisses the idea of rape within marriage. The questions raised include whether or not a married woman has bodily autonomy. In short, whether a husband should accept that his wife’s “no means no”, and any transgression would amount to rape.

The appeals follow a split decision from the Delhi High Court on whether or not to prosecute husbands for non-consensual sex with their wives. Illustration: Deepak Harichandan

The appeals follow a split decision from the Delhi High Court on whether or not to prosecute husbands for non-consensual sex with their wives. Illustration: Deepak Harichandan

Justice Rajeev Shakdher, the lead judge on the Delhi High Court Bench which delivered a split opinion in May, had favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being “unconstitutional”. He had said it would be “tragic if a married woman's call for justice is not heard even after 162 years” since the enactment of the IPC.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, the other judge on the HC Bench, had however disagreed and said the exception under the rape law was based on an “intelligible differentia”. The petitioners had challenged the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC (rape) on grounds that it discriminated against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.

Under the exception given in Section 375 of the IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being minor, is not rape.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL for common dress code in educational institutes 

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking direction to the Centre, States, and Union Territories to implement a common dress code for staffers and students in registered educational institutions.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said this is not a matter which should come to the Court for adjudication. The PIL argued that a dress code should be implemented to secure equality and promote fraternity and national integration. Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for PIL petitioner Nikhil Upadhyay, said this is a constitutional issue and sought a direction under the Right to Education Act.

Sensing the Bench’s disinclination to entertain the PIL, the counsel withdrew it.

The plea had been filed in the backdrop of the Karnataka ‘hijab’ row. The same Bench, headed by Justice Gupta, is hearing arguments on a batch of pleas challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions in the State.

The PIL, which was filed through lawyers Ashwini Upadhyay and Ashwani Dubey, had sought a direction to the Centre to set up a judicial commission or an expert panel to suggest steps for inculcating values of “social and economic justice, socialism secularism and democracy and to promote fraternity dignity unity and national integration among the students”.

“Alternatively, being custodian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights, direct the Law Commission of India to prepare a report suggesting steps to secure social equality and to promote fraternity dignity unity and national integration within three months,” it said.

Gujarat Congress working president Jignesh Mevani sentenced to six months in jail in 2016 rioting case

A court in Ahmedabad on Friday sentenced Gujarat Congress’s working president and MLA Jignesh Mevani and 18 others to six months’ simple imprisonment in a 2016 case of rioting.

The case was related to a road blockade agitation staged by Mevani and his associates.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate P.N. Goswami, who also imposed a fine on Mevani and others, suspended their sentence till October 17 to enable them file appeals.

The case was registered against Mevani and 19 others at the University police station in Ahmedabad in 2016 for staging road blockade to press their demand that an under-construction building of the law department of Gujarat University be named for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

The First Information Report was registered under Indian Penal Code sections 143 (unlawful assembly) and 147 (rioting) as well as sections of the Gujarat Police Act.

One of the accused died during the pendency of the case. Mevani, a prominent Dalit leader, won the 2017 Assembly election as an independent with the support of Congress. The party later made him a working president of its Gujarat unit.

Delhi excise policy row | ED quizzes AAP Minister Satyendar Jain in Tihar jail 

The Enforcement Directorate on Friday questioned Delhi Minister and AAP leader Satyendar Jain inside the Tihar jail in a money-laundering probe linked to alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped excise policy, official sources said.

Officials of the agency recorded Jain’s statement according to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The ED had moved a local court seeking its permission for the questioning. The court authorised the probe agency to carry out questioning on September 16, 22 and 23.

Jain was arrested by the ED on May 30 in another criminal case linked to alleged hawala dealings. A minister without a portfolio in the Delhi government, Jain had held health and power portfolios before he was taken into custody by the ED.

The sources said the agency wants to know and understand from Jain about the Cabinet approvals given by the AAP government for implementing the new excise policy. The policy implemented on November 17, 2021, was scrapped by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s government in July this year after Delhi L-G V.K. Saxena recommended a CBI probe into its implementation.

The agency also launched fresh raids in this case on September 16 and searched as many as 40 locations in states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and the Delhi-NCR.

The ED’s money laundering case in the excise policy stems from a CBI FIR in which Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and some bureaucrats have been named as accused.

The CBI had conducted raids in the case on August 19, covering the Delhi residences of Sisodia, IAS officer and former Delhi excise commissioner Arava Gopi Krishna, and 19 other locations across seven states and Union territories. Sisodia holds multiple portfolios in the Arvind Kejriwal government, including education and excise.

The ED is probing if there are irregularities in the formulation and execution of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 brought out in November last year.

In Brief: 

Former Punjab Chief Minister and chief of Punjab Lok Congress Amarinder Singh is all set to join the BJP on September 19 in New Delhi. The party’s chief spokesperson Pritpal Singh Baliawal on Friday told The Hindu that Capt. Amaridner Singh would be joining the BJP on September 19, and would also announce the merger of PLC with the BJP. Around a dozen former MLAs will also join the BJP along with Capt. Amarinder Singh, he added.

Evening Wrap will return tomorrow.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.