Despite the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) existing through the past 70 years and operational, and that out of the Rs783 crore, only Rs212 crore have been spent as of 2019, prime minister (PM) Narendra Modi last week announced the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund’ (PM CARES Fund).
Little is known about the constitution of the PM CARES Fund except that donations have been pouring in, ever since its launch. It should be a public authority since the money is aimed at financing measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic and therefore, must come under Section 4 disclosures of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, there is no separate website for the PM CARES Fund, nor has it been included in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund website
https://pmnrf.gov.in/en/.
The home page of the Prime Minister of India’s website
https://www.pmindia.gov.in/ describes the objective of the PM CARES Fund as follows: “Keeping in mind the need for having a dedicated national fund with the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like the one posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected, a public charitable trust under the name of PM CARES Fund has been set up.’’
It also states that the Prime Minister is the Chairman of this trust and its members include the defence minister, the home minister and the finance minister.
“In the first place, what is the need of another public fund trust,” asks former central information commissioner (CIC) and RTI activist, Shailesh Gandhi, “when the PM Relief fund is operational and money to the tune of Rs500 odd crore is already available for dispersing at the moment? Considering thousands of crores of rupees would be donated to the PM CARES Fund, we, the public, have been totally kept in the dark as to what kind of a trust it is. What is the document submitted to the charity commissioner, if at all it is submitted? If Prime Minister Modi is the chairman of the trust, will he remain so, even after he ceases to be the PM? How does one figure out if it is a public authority?’’
According to a tweet by Prime Minister Modi, this fund was created as a result of many people wanting to contribute to the cause. He tweeted: “People from all walks of life expressed their desire to donate to India’s war against COVID-19. Respecting that spirit, the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund has been constituted. This will go a long way in creating a healthier India.’’
As for the objective of the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, it states: “The resources of the PMNRF are now utilized primarily to render immediate relief to families of those killed in natural calamities like floods, cyclones and earthquakes, etc. and to the victims of major accidents and riots. Assistance from PMNRF is also rendered to partially defray the expenses for medical treatment like heart surgeries, kidney transplantation, cancer treatment and acid attack etc.’’ Obviously, the coronavirus epidemic is new to Planet Earth so it could perhaps fall under 'natural calamities'.
The PMI website states “PM Narendra Modi has always believed and shown in actions that public participation is the most effective way to mitigate any issue and this is yet another example. This fund will enable micro-donations as a result of which a large number of people will be able to contribute with the smallest of denominations.” The fact that the fund will primarily consist of micro-donations from lakhs and lakhs of people, transparency under the RTI Act is imperative. A good example is of the AAP political party which uploads every donation on its website on a regular basis. However, Gandhi says, “AAP did it voluntarily; it was not mandatory but unless and until we understand the nature of the PM CARES Fund it is difficult to know whether it is a public authority or not under RTI and that is indeed worrisome.’’
Shailesh Gandhi was at the forefront of the RTI campaign to bring the PM Relief Fund and CM Relief Fund under the RTI Act. In 2008, the CIC had ordered that PM and CM Relief funds have to be placed under RTI. However, the PMI Relief Fund website shows you a mere graph of funds collected and spent, with no details at all. So much for the people to show their trust in such funds, though Mr Modi this time is sure to garner a large amount. Otherwise, even during floods or other natural calamities, people are looking out for credible NGOs to give their donations.
(
Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
I appreciate the work your doing in other facets of life. However, the article is a bit premature. I believe the popularly elected Government of India is within it's right to create specific funds for specific purposes. Apart from that, the modalities of creating the fund/ using an existing fund are discussions for a later stage. The real question is asking how the funds are being utilised and whether it is being spent within the timeframe of this pandemic and whether it is crowding out other fund raising initiatives by individuals and NGOs which are doing the work on the ground. Why don't you start a campaign to get the govt to disclose the utilisation towards Covid-19 relief?
I am continuing to ask questions, oops, seeking information through RTI (because there are public authorities who claim that you cannot ask questions under the RTI Act!) in spite of knowing that the information commissioners, including the RTI flag bearer of ML- Shailesh Gandhi-have murdered the law that they are tasked, empowered, equipped and paid to enforce. And the Mission Statement of my Save RTI Campaign is :
SAVE RIGHT TO INFORMATION. USE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
GET INFORMATION OR......
EXPOSE AT LEAST THREE IDIOTS/TRAITORS* AMONG PUBLIC SERVANTS!
1. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
2. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (AND THE HEAD OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY WHERE THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS NOT THE FAA!) AND
3. THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
* An idiot is one who does not know the job s/he is getting paid to do and a traitor is one who knows it but does not do it. Provided that even an idiot can be branded a traitor based on the consequences of his/her action
Just to highlight how shamelessly the public servants subvert the only pro-democracy and citizen-friendly law of this law let me narrate two of my latest experiences.
On 30 Sep 2019 I had submitted a complaint to the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Kerala about a Principal Secretary to the Govt of Kerala issuing a circular that public authorities must issue receipts to the public WITHIN ONE WEEK of their submitting any documents to them. The grossness of the treachery is that he had quoted two earlier circulars that mandated issue of such receipts immediately and they had also included a format of the receipt and a board on which this information, including the format of the receipt, had to be displayed for the knowledge of the public.
On seeking information under the RTI Act on action taken on the complaint I have been informed on 21/12/2019-that is almost 3 months of the complaint- that information had been sought from the District Collectors.
Similarly, on 25 Sep 2019, I had complained to the Chief Secretary that the PIOs were not complying with the directions contained in DoPT OM 10/1/2013-IR dated 6 Oct 2015 on the format of replies and the information commissioners are not taking cognizance of this lapse even when explicitly brought out in the 2nd appeal.
Again, against an application under the RTI Act the 1st appellate authority, an Additional Secretary to the Govt of Kerala, had responded that the complaint had been forwarded to the information commission on 15/02/2020- just about 5 months after the complaint. Or more precisely almost 3 months after receipt of the application under the RTI Act and one month after receipt of the 1st appeal.
This third case should be an award winning response for stupidity (or, should I call it treachery?)
In the same complaint of 25 Sep 2019, I had also included that the RTI Act permits one to submit applications in English, Hindi and the local official language. Hence the replies to such application have also got to be in the same language as that of the application. The same Additional Secretary wrote to say that the RTI Act does not mention that the reply has also got to be in the same language.
As for whether the new fund is Public Authority, I trust MoneyLife have sought an answer via the RTI route and would share it with us when they get it.
That said, to my mind, raising this issue now, right in the midst of the Corona War, shows poor taste and a a shocking absence of a sense of proportion.
Can one fairly expect the PM and his band of close aides to be immersing themselves, at this time, into all the legal documentation required just to dispel suspicion of some self-appointed guardians of probity in public life?
Maybe the sense of power that the RTI activists and the like enjoy when they question the highest in the land is so addictive that the particular members of that ilk, who have raised this question, just could not defer it to a more appropriate time. They had to have their shot and pronto.
Be that as it may, folks. Rest assured that PM Modi will answer this question. And his answer will leave no room for any doubt about the propriety of this fund.
Your point about Modi running his show on loans is lost on me. Are you suggesting that PMCares fund is a loan of sorts?
As for your suggestion that all funds and the like should come under the RTI Act , I agree with you 100%. Other than matters within the preview of intelligence services and those relating to the national security, everything should come under the RTI Act.
One, can you point to a single falsehood in the Op India article in question, including the excerpts from other sources that it has quoted?
Two, since the MoneLife article juxtaposed the two relief funds, wasn't it the author's journalistic duty to compare the two in toto, and not just mention an odd point of comparison?
Three, shouldn't the facts that in 1985 the then Congress PM did away with the 'management committee' of the PMNRF and arrogated to himself the power to utilise the fund at HIS SOLE discretion and that until then the President of Congress was a member of the management committee have been mentioned in the MoneLife article? Particularly since it raised the question : Why a new fund? The answer that the PM possibly wanted the new fund to be more democratic would have occurred to the readers.
So whether Op India is generally credible or not, or whether I should legitimise it by quoting it or not is not the point, those are diversionary matters. Whether what Op India article in question said in this particular case was one, factually correct and two, exhaustive, or not is the point. I tick both these boxes.
In passing, though, just an observation. Magazines and journalists have to earn their reputation again and again. They can't rest on their past laurels. Inability to view self-critically all the criticism hurled at them is their professional death knell.
"To begin with, this Fund will be managed by a committee consisting of
The Prime Minister
The President of Indian National Congress
..."
Yes, it is not the "The President of India" but "The President of INC"
I am qouting documents from a government site, there is no misinformation, while giving reply please study.
If establishment is not getting asked question, who will respond? Opposition?
So we need to ask question to INC .. where will PMCares spend money? That will sound bit ridiculous. Don't you think?
Equally, readers must ask questions of journalists and magazines, including about their motives, however well-reputed they may be. Even more so, when reputed journalists and magazines write/publish articles without due research, diligence and application of mind.
A comparison of the article in question with the one on the same subject that appeared in Op India would be instructive in this regard to those who seek instruction. And those who want to get a full and well-rounded treatment of the subject would do well to read that article too.
stop this kind of opposition for the sake of it.. Lutyns media should be first to object.,
Anyway all of award wapasi gang , jnu types is very silent , rather un-surprising
Otherwise in the absence of such information, people may say that all these questions are being asked too late and these should have been raised at the start.
But it looks like some people are very sensitive and look at pertinent questions as unfavorable criticism.