Bombay HC dismisses PIL questioning operation of PM Cares Fund

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the operation of the PM Cares Fund, created

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the operation of the PM Cares Fund, created by the Central government to fight the Covid-19 pandemic in India.

HT Image

The bench of justice Sunil Shukre and justice Anil Kilor found no substance in the PIL filed by Arvind Waghmare, a practicing lawyer from Nagpur. Waghmare had sought a direction to the chairperson of the fund, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to appoint three other trustees, with at least two of them from among opposition members of Parliament (MPs).

He had also sought a direction to the fund to disclose on its website all the contributions received and outgoings and to update the information once a week to ensure transparency in the operation of the fund.

Waghmare submitted that the scheme of the fund itself required it’s chairperson to nominate three eminent persons in the field of research, health, science, etc, as other trustees, but no appointments were made in terms of the trust deed. He had questioned the validity of the decisions taken so far by the fund, on this ground of non-appointment of other trustees.

Additional solicitor general Anil Singh strenuously opposed the PIL, contending that it was “more of a publicity interest litigation with underlying political agenda”. He submitted that the improper intention of the petitioner could be gauged by the fact that he contributed an amount of ₹1,001 to the fund on May 8, and filed the PIL the next day as a ‘contributor’.

As regards the appointment of trustees, the bench noticed that the chairperson has been vested with the power to nominate three eminent personalities as trustees. “The words ‘has the power to nominate’ are clearly enabling. They only confer capacity, power or authority and imply discretion. This provision nowhere says that it shall be mandatory for the chairperson to nominate three trustees. There is nothing in the provision which even hints at some duty to exercise the power,” the bench said.

The bench accepted Singh’s contention that acceding to the prayer for appointment of two opposition MPs on the trust would amount to making changes in the trust deed and rejected the prayer.

“The wish so nurtured by the petitioner in person, in our considered view, cannot be fulfilled as it has no mooring in law,” said the bench. It clarified that since PM Cares Fund is a charitable trust registered under the Registration Act, it required no further clarification from the court that such a body would be governed by its deed of trust. It added that if no provision was made in the trust deed to induct some members of the opposition parties into the board of trustees, “an outsider like the petitioner” cannot knock on the doors of the HC to indirectly get the trust deed amended.

With respect to the relief about disclosures of receipts and outgoings of the fund, the bench said there can be no two opinions about the underlying object of public disclosure. It is to ensure proper utilisation of the fund money. However, the court added that this object can be seen to be more than fulfilled by registration of the fund as a charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, which contains adequate provisions for obtaining such information.