Page 50 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

J32 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
` 3,075.85 crore was listed as “voluntary contributions”, according to its official
website.
Section 4(1)(c) of RTI Act mandates PMO to “publish all relevant facts
while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect
public”. People including petitioner can legitimately expect that PMO could have
been directed to disclose these details periodically on its own on the official web-
site. It was disappointing that it was not done.
Both the ‘PM-Cares Fund’ the ‘PMO’, which manages, controls, and allo-
cates from that Fund are the ‘public authorities’ as per RTI Act. It is not disputed
that PMO is already under the purview of RTI Act. The PMO has complete con-
trol over the PM-CARES Fund. It cannot escape saying it is not public authority.
Perhaps realising this, the PMO responded to Lokesh Batra (Retd. Com-
modore) differently. It said the information sought would disproportionately
divert the resources, without claiming that it was not public authority. Lokesh
Batra asked for the total number of RTI applications and appeals received and
disposed of in the PMO each month since April, 2020 as well as the number of
such applications and appeals related to PM-CARES and the Prime Minister’s
National Relief Fund. The CPIO of Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) denied saying :
“The information sought by you is not maintained in this office in complied
form. Its collection and compilation would disproportionately divert the re-
sources of this office from the efficient discharge of its normal functions, thereby
attracting the provisions under Section 7(9) of the Act”. Section 7(9), on the other
hand, only says, “An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in
which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the
public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the rec-
ord in question.”
If it is difficult to give information in the form sought, the public authori-
ty could give it in available form. But information cannot be denied. Kerala High
Court clarified in 2010 that this provision, does not even confer any discretion on
a public authority to withhold information, let alone any exemption from disclo-
sure, it only gives discretion to the public authority to provide the information in
a form other than the form in which the information is sought for.” Thus, this is a
clear case of abuse and factually a false statement.
If some individual or an Indian corporate or Chinese corporate that has
donated thousands of crores of rupees to this PM-CARES Fund, why it should
not be known to the people, who are supposed to be ultimate beneficiaries dur-
ing this pandemic? Why a citizen cannot ask under RTI, “Who are the donors
who gave ` 3,076 crore in the first five days in March, 2020? Do they include
Chinese firms? What is the amount received since April 1, 2020 and who are the
donors? How these funds are allocated? Who will allocate? If a proposal requires
funding immediately from PM-CARES Fund is rejected, why it is rejected? How
the amount is spent so far for COVID-19 pandemic and what is the relief they
could achieve? The accountability mechanism and access to information system
legally incorporated under RTI are democratic requirements, should not be
weakened if rulers are sincere about giving corruption-free Government.
[Source : Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu in Hans India, Hyderabad, dated
25-8-2020]

_______
GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  66
( A32 )