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”.) 

 

So, what’s the major concern of citizens today, against the backdrop of a national lockdown where the entire country of 1.3 billion has been asked to stay indoors for three weeks, to counter the spread of the Corona virus? Obviously, information! News, views and videos through television media, social media and e-newspapers are aplenty, with a seasoning of fake news thrown in. But what about the duty of public authorities, which come under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and are bound by suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act? This section ensures that authentic information, in real time, is available to citizens everyday as the remain locked in their homes with the hashtag #stayhomestaysafe  going viral. 

 

We are talking about public authorities that are directly connected with the present emergency, such as police departments, the collectorates, the divisional commisisonerates, the municipal corporations, the public health departments and so on. At the local and district level, these are important centres of information for people. The onus of disseminating accurate information lies on them. 

 

So, what kind of information does a citizen look for as she lives life within the four walls of her house? 

 

Let’s take Pune as an example of what every town, city or state is undergoing. The Pune Municipal Corporation announced reduction in PMPML public transport buses to 1000. While this is fine, people are unclear about which routes they are plying on, what time and at what intervals. How was the choice of bus routes decided? 

 

It is mandatory under Section 4 of the RTI Act for the http://pmc.gov.in and www.pmpml.org websites to upload this basic information so at the click of the mouse the user can find out whether he or she can get this facility near her home and for the destination she or he wants to go? 

 

Remember, the buses are mainly for those who are part of the essential services, such as banks, government employees, media, municipal workers and police personnel who are exempted from the lockdown. In Mumbai, they are let into the buses only on showing their  identity cards. With other means of transport locked down, information about routes and schedules becomes crucial when the frequency has been drastically cut. 

 

However, no such information has been put up in the public domain.  RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar has written about this to Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray. He says, “Presently the buses which have been allowed to ply are stationed at various depots and it benefits no one. Instead, they should be strategically stationed at public hospitals, water supply centres, and at dedicated bus stops conveniently for the conservancy staff of the city. This would make this service more useful and relevant. The two websites should put that up on the home page with graphics, listing and helpline numbers.’’ 

 

This is indeed true! Often, government officials such as the Pune Collector disseminate  urgent government circulars relating to various rules and regulations applicable to citizens in the time of coronavirus through social media such Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp. While this is good, it is just as important to upload them on official websites. 

 

Pune collector Naval Kishore Ram’s appeal to the public to stay safe at homes is doing the rounds of social media, Pune collectorate’s website (www.pune.nic.in ) has no such circulars or decisions uploaded in real time.  I understand that only helpline numbers have been put up. 

 

In fact, activist Vijay Kumbhar tells me, when you go to http://pune.nic.in you are redirected to http://pune.gov.in where you can see the helpline numbers. It is the same with the Pune divisional commisisonerate’s website http://divvcommpune.in.  

 

There is no information on the life-threatening pandemic on any of these official websites. Social media surely cannot be a substitute for official websites – it can only be a means of fast dissemination of information.  

 

Let’s look at the Pune Police website, http://punepolice.in. The Pune Police, like their counterparts all over the country have occasionally used their baton even on persons stepping out for exempted work. 

 

But then, Pune has had cases of people with a mandatory self-quarantine stamp stepping out and endangering others. They have had to be reprimanded. Sometimes the cops have had to take action against housing society office bearers  for ill-treating those who under self-quarantine in their homes. All this is positive and necessary.  

 

The Pune Police has also come up with an effective form to apply for permission to step out.  All you have to do is send WhatsApp on four specific mobile numbers circulated by the Pune Police through WhatsApp. They ensure a prompt reply to the WhatsApp request. But again, why is this e-form is not available on the Pune Police website. Shouldn’t it be available on the official website too?

 

It would also be helpful to citizens of the police website (http://punepolice.in) on the number of people who have been quarantined; action taken against those who defied quarantine; number of permissions granted for citizens to come out of their homes and helpline numbers. This is especially important for senior citizens who are a significant portion of Pune’s population and may need help during medical or social emergencies. Many of them live by themselves as their children are abroad. 

 

But sorry, the latest press release on the Pune Police website is about an accident in which a senior citizen woman was injured due to a reckless two-wheeler rider. But all means upload such news, but not at the expense of ignoring important information during a pandemic required by citizens confined at home. After all, not everybody is on social media, but they do look for official websites.

 

This disdain or lack of understanding about disclosure of information and transparency, I presume is endemic. Informing people  about decisions and regulations relating to the coronavirus pandemic are mandatory under Section 4 of the RTI Act and under Section 7of the RTI Act and the RTI applicant can file an RTI application and has the right to get it within 48 hours. 

 

Government departments are also working with skeletal staff, but if private companies have been exhorted to work from home and complete official filings online during the lockdown, surely the relevant public information officers could be asked to upload all relevant information on official websites on a daily basis. 

 

Surely this would not require a new directive by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) or the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) to be implemented?

 

(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”.)

 

Earlier this month, the three-judge bench led by Justice R Bhanumathi upheld that the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot override relevant rules under the Gujarat High Court Rules. Information or certified copies of orders held by a high court (HC) can be given to a third party only as per rules framed by the HC and not under RTI, the Supreme Court (SC) says.

 

This, in other words, mean that a citizen cannot file RTI seeking to obtain pleadings in the HC that have own rules. 

 

The RTI Act says that all information should be in public domain and as per Section 2(2) of the Act, the applicant is not required to provide any reason for requesting such information. And that such a stance is not ‘inconsistent’ with the RTI Act, the apex court ruled.

 

When Moneylife contacted former central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, he opined that, “What is obviously ‘inconsistent’ is that the High Court rules compel the information seeker to give reasons, which the RTI Act does not.

 

"This judgment is a direct assault on citizen’s fundamental right as what the Supreme Court says becomes law. Now, if every public authority were to derive their own rules and insist that information would be given strictly by those in-house rules only, then what happens to the RTI Act? We can write off the RTI Act in the next 10 years for we have been given a system of information under this law but now public authority gets the liberty to nullify it.”

 

In April 2010, an RTI applicant sought information on two civil application cases from the Gujarat High Court. The public information officer (PIO) of the HC replied that he should make an application through his advocate addressed to the deputy registrar and attach Rs3 court fee stamp. The PIO quoted Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, which states that the application also needs to be accompanied by an affidavit stating the reasons why the applicant needs the documents, as he is not a party to both the cases. And that he would provided information only as per the Gujarat High Court rules 1993 and not under the RTI Act.

 

The RTI applicant then filed first appeal with the appellate authority, the registrar of administration of the Gujarat HC. In August 2010, the appeal was dismissed stating that “the alternative efficacious remedy is already available under the Gujarat High Court Rules,1993 for obtaining copies and that under the provisions of RTI Act, no certified copies can be provided.”

 

The appellant hen filed second appeal with the chief information commissioner of Gujarat, who ordered the PIO of the Gujarat High Court to provide information under RTI (as every citizen has the right to procure information in any lawful way he wishes too).

 

The PIO stood by his grounds, which did not convince the state CIC. 

 

Relying upon Sections 6(2) and 22 of the RTI Act, the state CIC, in his order of April 2013, directed the PIO of Gujarat High Court to provide the information sought by the applicant within 20 days. But the PIO once again stood by his earlier stance.

 

The appellant then filed a case in the Gujarat High Court against the first appellate authority (FAA)’s order. The latter asked the PIO to provide information within four weeks adding a rider that supply of information by the High Court “shall not be construed as acceptance of applicability of RTI Act to the High Court.”

 

The PIO appealed to the HC division bench, which set aside the order of the chief information commissioner by observing that when a copy is demanded by any person, it has to be in accordance with the rules of the HC on the subject.

 

The appellant then approached the SC. The appellant’s senior counsel contended on 4 March 2020, that “In view of the inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and the Gujarat High Court Rules, harmonious construction between the two is not possible; however, Section 22 of the RTI Act specifically provides that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an overriding effect over any other laws for the time being in force.”

 

The senior counsel also submitted that “the High Court Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, which would be subject to any other law and the non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act shows that the provisions of the RTI Act would override the High Court Rules.”

 

However, in its 4 March 2020 order, the three-judge bench of Justices R Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy pronounced that insisting on providing information as per High Court rules is not inconsistent with the RTI Act.

 

Since the HC rules for procuring information already exists, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to, the bench ruled.

 

 

(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”.)