On Friday 25th March 2022, the Supreme Court refused to consider a plea against the PM Cares Fund. The plea was submitted in the apex court to challenge an Allahabad High Court order rejecting a challenge to the constitutional validity of the PM Cares Fund. The petitioner’s lawyer Devdatt Kamat said that the High Court had not dealt with all the points raised in the petition. The Supreme Court bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai instructed the petitioner Divya Pal Singh to go to the High Court for a review.
The bench said in its order, “You might be right in saying that all issues were not considered. You go and file a review. Let us have the benefit of the High Court order. You can approach the top court again in case of grievance after HC decides the matter.”
Senior advocate Devdatt Kamat represented the petitioner. He said the High Court was not correct in dismissing the Writ Petition solely based on the judgment of the Supreme Court. He submitted that the Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF), a public charitable trust, was created on January 24, 1948. When the constitution of India came into force on 26th January 1950, at that time, as per Entry 10 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule funds were prescribed to be created only by the force of law. In 2005, Disaster Management Act was passed and National Disaster Relief Fund (NDRF) was created. Therefore, PMNRF lost its utility.
The petition claimed that the PM Cares Fund that was created in March 2020 during the pandemic weakens the already existing Disaster Management Act of 2005 because it is a substitute to NDRF and that the PM Cares Fund is taken out of the purview of the RTI Act 2005.
Advocate Kamat said, “Validity and disclosure were sought in this Writ Petition. That is not the scope of judgment in the Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). This becomes all the more important because the judgment in CPIL is premised on the PM-CARES Fund does not receive money from the Government.” Replying to this argument, Justice Rao said, “We find too many public-spirited lawyers. Last week an advocate in Bangalore was saying reduce NEET cut off marks.”
The bench passed the order that says, “The senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the relief claimed in the writ petition and submitted that the points in the writ petition had not been dealt with by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition. The only ground on which the writ petition was dismissed was that the list is covered by the CPIL. The senior counsel seeks permission to withdraw to approach the High Court filing review to argue the other grounds. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this court against the order of the high court.”
