[1] That the PM Care fund is not a Public Authority, within the limit of right to

Information Act, 2005

It was humbly contented before the Hon’ble court that the PM Care fund is not
a Public Authority, within the limit of right to Information Act, 2005 on the
following grounds, firstly. The fund doesn’t fall in the definition of public
authority [1.1] Secondly, the right to know under Article 19 is not absolute [1.2]
[1.1] The fund doesn’t fall in the definition of public authority.
As mentioned in sec- 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 20051;
“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government
established or constituted, —
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and
includes any—
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
The PM care Fund is not a public authority on grounds that the fund is deemed
as a trust and is not financed, owned or controlled by the Government of India.
He further drew a connection to a 2012 case, in Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar
Tripathi2, public funds were explicated as funds that are a result of state
imposed and collected taxes, cuss, service charges, duties etc. from its citizens.
Therefore, the existence of government control in the management of the
PMNRF is clearly lacking and could not be considered as a public authority.
The right to information is not absolute 3. It is fettered in part by Section 8 of the
Act, which lays down ten exemptions from disclosure of information. The ones
relevant here are Sections 8(1)(e)4, which protects information emanating from
a public authority’s fiduciary relationship with another, and Section 8(1)(j) 5,

1
Right to Information Act, 2005
2
Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi, LQ 2012 HC 11008
3
Gautam Bhatia, june 6 2020, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/06/06/coronavirus-and-the-
constitution-xxx-pm-cares-fund-and-the-right-to-information-act-guest-post/
4
Sec 8(1)(e) of RTI, 2005- information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information
protecting personal information, the disclosure of which is irrelevant for public
interest. Neither of these are applicable to PM CARES Fund.
The term ‘ fiduciary relationship’ was describe by the SC in the case of Central
Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay6, The bench comprising
of JJ. R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik discussed as follows:
The term “fiduciary” refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of
another, showing good faith and candour, where such other person reposes trust
and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term
“fiduciary relationship” is used to describe a situation or transaction where one
person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in
regard to his affairs, business or transaction(s). The term also refers to a person
who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). There is no question of the
fiduciary withholding information relating to the beneficiary, from the
beneficiary himself7.
As for Section 8(1)(j), a constitution bench of the SC comprising of JJ Gogoi,
Ramana, Chandrachud, Gupta and Kaul in Supreme Court of India v Subhash
Chandra Agarwal8 stressed on the need to strike a balance between right to
information under Article 19(1)(a) and right to privacy under Article 21, with
right to ‘informational privacy’ being recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v
Union of India9. Any invasion of an individual’s personal information, which
does not warrant public interest (i.e., something to know in interest of public
welfare, not merely something which is of interest to the public) can thus be
protected. But even this is conditional – if on weighing the risks, the CPIO if of
the opinion that dissemination of such information is vital, then he may proceed
to make such information available. Thus ‘public interest’ is supreme.
It is important to note that in both reported RTI applications rejected by the
PMO, no such information was sought. Additionally, the CPIO always has the
option to ‘sever’ personal information under Section 10 of the Act. Public
interest is clearly at stake, just as it was for PMNRF, as noted by Justice Bhat in
his judgment.
5
Sec 8(1)(J) of RTI, 2005- information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information
6
Central Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 [Arising out of
SLP [C] No.7526/2009
7
Para 44, judgment, Central Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF
2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009
8
Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459
9
K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012
A disclosure of such information will ensure that the voluntary donations made
by the citizen body is not appropriated by any government official. In this
regard, the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner indeed serves a
public purpose10.
The PM CARES Fund is a charitable trust registered under the Registration Act,
190811. PM Cares Fund is a voluntary fund registered as a public charitable trust
necessitated due to the emergent situation borne out of Covid-19 pandemic, any
individual or institution can contribute to PM cares. It does not get any
budgetary support and no government money is credited in the PM Cares
Fund12. Term 'public authority' Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act includes any
authority or body or an institution of self-government established by the
Constitution or under the Constitution13.
The nature of NDRF and PM CARES Fund are entirely different. The NDRF is
a statutory fund created under the Disaster Management Act (DM Act) 14. Since
it is a public charitable trust with voluntary donations and does not receive any
government support, no CAG audit is required. In case of NDRF, the guidelines
issued by the central government as per DM Act specifically provide for audit
of the NDRF by CAG.
Section 11 of the DM Act 2005 mandates that there shall be a National Disaster
Management Plan (NDMP) for the whole of India and the NDMP complies with
the National Policy on Disaster Management (NPDM) of 2009 and conforms to
the provisions of the DM Act making it mandatory for the various central
ministries and departments to have adequate DM plans. While the NDMP will
pertain to the disaster management for the whole of the country, the hazard-
specific nodal ministries and departments notified by the Government of India
will prepare detailed DM plans specific to the disaster assigned. As per Section
37 of the DM Act, every ministry and department of the Government of India,
be it hazard-specific nodal ministries or not, shall prepare comprehensive DM
plans detailing how each of them will contribute to the national efforts in the
domains of disaster prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery.

10
Para 35, K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012
11
PM Care Fund, available at https://www.pmcares.gov.in/en/web/page/faq
12
Does the PM Cares Fund require an audit by the CAG? What the Supreme Court said, Murali Krishnan
Hindustan Times, New Delhi, see at https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/does-the-pm-caresfund-
require-an-audit-by-the-cag-what-the-supreme-court-said/story-Dz3gs18ALS9uXMGk6Kuq0N.html
13
Interpreting the expression 'public authority' in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Ors v.
State of Kerala and Ors MANU/SC/1020/2013: (2013) 16 SCC 82,(India
14
PM CARE FUND- contribution needed to be credited to NDRF, The Hindu available at
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-cares-contribution-need-not-be-credited-to-ndrf-supreme-
court/article32381595.ece
We may also notice that this Court in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India
and Ors15. has noticed that National Plan Under Section 11 has already been
approved by National Disaster Management Authority.
The PM CARES fund is an independent auditor, The PM Care Fund has
specified that an audit will be conducted at the end of the financial year and that
it was registered as a “public charitable trust” at New Delhi on March 27,
202016.
As per the India Trust Act, 1882:
A “trust” is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out
of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted
by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner17.
The trustee is required to manage the trust property in accordance with the
trustor's wishes and in the beneficiary's best interests18. If he does not do he it
will consider as breach of trust.
The mere fact that administration of the Trust is vested in trustees, i.e., a group
of people, will not itself take away the public character of the Trust as has been
laid down in Mulla Gulam Ali & Safiabai D. Trust v. Deelip Kumar & Co19.
If we see the Constitution of the Trust, The Chairperson of the Board of
Trustees (Prime Minister) shall have the power to nominate three trustees to the
Board of Trustees who shall be eminent persons in the field of research, health,
science, social work, law, public administration and philanthropy or Any person
appointed a Trustee shall act in a pro bono capacity20.
I have one common fact that if any one donate their money in temple or any
worshiping place why don’t anyone go and ask for the information about their
donation. In the temples or any worshiping place, the head of the temple is
always handle the donation department also. Same situation arises here also that
our prime minister is head of the PM Care fund and PM Care fund is acting like
a worshiping place where you donate money to help poor. Apart from all the
burden on our PM he is handling this also we have to support him in his work
not filling some irrelevant PIL to disturb the administrative function of our
country. On this matter out SC also give its judgement in CBSE V. Aditya
15
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and Ors, (2017) 6 SCC 730, (India)
16
Aman sharma, ET bureau, 12 june 2020, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-
nation/pm-cares-fund-now-has-an-independent-auditor-pmo-is-the-trusts-head-
office/articleshow/76342540.cms?from=mdr
17
Section 3 Indian Trust Act, 1882
18
Adam hayes, 25 may 2020, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trust-property.asp
19
Mulla Gulam Ali & Safiabai D. Trust v. Deelip Kumar & Co, (2003) 11 SCC 772, In paragraph 4 (India)
20
About PM care Fund, PMINDIA available at https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/about-pm-cares-fund
Bandhopadhyay21, SC said indiscriminate and impractical demands for sundry
information would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency
of the administration and result in the executive getting clogged down with non-
productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The SC has not laid
down any in the form of ‘precedent’ to use for rejecting information.
[1.2], the right to know under Article 19 is not absolute
The 'right to know' is not absolute. The RTI Act envisages certain restrictions
on the 'right to know' in the form of exemptions enumerated in Clause (1) to
Section 8. Crucially, restrictions on the disclosure of information under the RTI
Act also constitute restrictions on the information applicant's 'right to know'
which is protected Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The constitutional
permissibility of the statutory restrictions on disclosure contained within the
RTI Act is not in challenge before this Court. But it is trite to state that any
restrictions on the disclosure of information would necessarily need to comport
with the existing law on the protection of the 'right to know' as a facet of the
freedom of expression.22
In the case of Rakesh Sanghi v. International Advanced Centre for Powder
Metallurgy & New Materials, Hyderabad23 wherein the CIC held that the
citizen’s right to seek information is not absolute but is conditioned by the
Government’s right to invoke exemptions, wherever such exemption applicable.
The Court held that right of information is a facet of the freedom of 'speech and
expression' as contained in Article 19(l) (a) of the Constitution of India. Thus,
indisputably it is a fundamental right. The Court also observed that every right
legal or moral carries with it a corresponding obligation. It is subject to several
exemptions/ exceptions indicated in broad terms.24
The High Court of Patna also expressed a similar view in Shekhar Chandra v
State Information Commissioner, Bihar25 and observed that the RTI
contemplates giving only such information which is available and held in
records it does not expect the public authority to first carry out an enquiry and
'collect "collate" information and then make it available to the applicant.

21
Central Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 [Arising out
of SLP [C] No.7526/2009
22
59Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India (UOI) (18.08.2020 - SC): MANU/SC/0595/2020
(India)
23
Rakesh Sanghi v. International Advanced Centre for Powder Metallurgy & New Materials, Hyderabad F.No,
CIC/AT/A/2007/01363
24
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399: JT (2003) 2 SC 528: AIR
2004 SC 1442 (India)
25
Shekhar Chandra v State Information Commissioner, Bihar AIR 2012 Pat 60 (India)
Section 8 of RTI Act, 2005 contains a well-defined list of ten kinds of matters
that cannot be made public. A perusal of the provisions of Section 8 reveals that
there is certain information contained in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and (h),
for which there is no obligation for giving such an information to any citizen.26
Further in this regard when the conversation moves to Religious Trust Justice
Challa Kodanda Ram of the Hyderabad High court held that unaided religious
Trusts which are not substantially financed by appropriate government do not
fall under the ambit of Public Authority 27. Usually trusts primary source of
income is the money they receive from public as donations and they main
objective they work under is to serve the society.
Hence it was humbly submitted that PM Care Fund in not a public Authority,
under the limit of Right of Information Act, 2005.

26
Secretary General, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, AIR 2010 Delhi 159, 166 (India)
27
D.A.V College Trust and Management Society and Ors vs. Director of Public Instructions and Ors, AIR 2019
SC 4411 (India