Plea before Delhi HC to declare PM Relief Fund as 'public authority' under RTI Act
New Delhi, Feb 8: A plea has been filed before the Delhi High Court asserting that the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund must be deemed to be a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act.
The application was filed by retired Navy officer Commodore Lokesh K Batra in a pending appeal dealing with the issue of classification of the fund as "public authority" under the law.
The applicant said the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF), headed by a constitutional authority (Prime Minister of India) and administered by joint secretary to the prime minister, has all the trappings of being a "public authority", and thus prayed for disclosure of certain information pertaining to the fund.
The applicant had filed an RTI application before the Prime Minister's Office in April 2020 seeking information concerning the creation of the fund, entrusting the fund to the prime minister and the selection of chartered accountant for conducting of the audit, among others, the application said.
The Central Information Commission (CIC), however, subsequently, disposed of the RTI plea on account of the pendency of the issue of the fund coming under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act before the high court.
The applicant submitted that when his RTI query was pending, the authorities claimed that they were not bound to share the information as the fund was not a "public authority" and that all contributions to the fund are "voluntary" in nature.
In his plea, the applicant further said that the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 is "completely inconsistent" with their claim that the fund only accepted "voluntary" funds by individuals and associations.
"Sec 12(2) of the 2018 Scheme provides for automatic depositing of amount of electoral bonds not encashed within the validity period of 15 days directly to the Appellant body. Depositing amounts of Electoral Bond (not encashed within the validity period) with the appellant, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a voluntary donation'," the application said.
It further said that the fund must be deemed to be a "public authority" under the RTI Act as all disbursements are made solely on the discretion of the prime minister in his official capacity and the applicant should be made a party to the pending appeal on the issue.
In May 2018, a division bench of the high court had delivered a split verdict on the issue of compulsory disclosure of the details of institutional donors in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund under the RTI Act following a plea by Aseem Takyar, and referred the matter to a third judge.
The spilt verdict came on the fund's plea challenging a single judge's order of November 19, 2015 dismissing its petition against a 2012 Central Information Commission order asking it to disclose the details of its institutional donors.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
