LexLife- Assignment Two

ANALYSIS: PLEA REGARDING PM CARES

Introduction
When the world at present is devasted by the Covid-19 crisis, the government of India also
has undertaken various measures to deal with the continuously escalating number of COVID-
19 infected patients. ‘Prime Minister’s Citizen’s Assistance and Relief in Emergency
Situations’ (hereinafter PM-CARES) is one such scheme launched by the government “to
aid the government’s efforts to fight the coronavirus pandemic.” 1 After its launch by the
PM himself, this scheme is in controversy because, according to critics, not only is it
redundant and its presence undermines the importance and necessity of the already
existing National Disaster Response Fund (hereinafter NDRF), but also various features of
the scheme itself are problematic. This issue came into limelight, when a PIL was filed by
an NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter CPIL) demanding transfer of funds
from PM-CARES to NDRF.
Facts of the Issue
CPIL filed a PIL in the Supreme Court questioning the legitimacy and need of the PM-
CARES scheme, launched by PM, amidst Covid-19 Crisis. The PIL demanded the centre
to transfer the funds from the PM-CARES to the NDRF owing to the fact that NDRF under
the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter DMA) is established to fulfil the very
same purpose; hence the prior stands redundant. It alleged the Centre of inefficiently using
the NDRF, as no evidence of grass root progress has been released by the government in
public domain. It exhibited concerns regarding the opaqueness of the new scheme, as the
same is not subject to CAG audit as well as RTI. If allowed, it would have increased
transparency and credibility of the scheme. It pointed towards the lack of a National Plan
with rigid guidelines, to combat the crisis and called for setting up of one by the centre
with the help of the states.
This PIL was reviewed by a three-judge bench comprising of , justices Ashok Bhushan,
S.K. Kaul and M.R. Shah, which gave the government a time frame of four weeks to prepare
its submission in response to it.
The Centre, through its affidavit, responded that NDRF, a statutory fund, created under
section 46 of the DMA, imposes no bar on the government to establish another fund like that
of PM-CARES. Also, unlike NDRF that “consists of the fund in the form of budgetary
provisions made by the central government”, 2 PM-CARES accepts voluntary donations as
well, which forms a major demarcation in the mechanism, making the later distinct from
prior. The affidavit read that “all funds other than the funds stipulated under section 46 of
DM Act, 2005 are separate, different and distinct, created separately under separate
provisions” thus, making the plea for the transfer of funds neither maintainable on merits nor
under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
Regarding the allegation of misusing the funds or inefficiently using the funds, the affidavit
provided a comprehensive list of the NGOs working and using the allotted funds to reach and

1
https://thewire.in/government/pm-cares-revenue-department
2
https://in.news.yahoo.com/existence-ndr-fund-does-not-120800948.html
help the victims of the pandemic on grass root levels. This was also backed by the
government’s claim of installing 1340 ‘Made in India’ ventilators across India by using PM-
CARES fund.
The Centre contended that ‘a public authority’ as defined under RTI Act is, “an organisation
established (a) under or by the Constitution (b) by any other law made by the parliament or
(c) by a notification or order issued by the government.” Fitting in none, PM-CARES is not a
public authority and thus not subjected to scrutiny under the RTI Act. Revealing the
‘classified information’ about the scheme in the public domain might jeopardize the purpose
it ought to achieve. Similarly, the centre affirmed that it would be audited by independent
auditors, rather by the Comptroller and Auditor General, “the constitutional officer charged
with auditing all receipts and expenditure of the Central and state governments, as well as the
accounts of authorities substantially financed by the government.”3
Finally, responding to the plea’s demand to set up a National Plan to combat the pandemic in
a more structured way, the Centre said that the National Disaster Management Plan, under
section 11 of the DMA is already in force at the national level. Along with this plan, that
contains specific provisions to deal with “biological and public health emergencies”, 4 the
ministry has also released various other plans such as the “cluster containment plan for
Covid-19 and the containment plan for large outbreaks of Covid-19”. 5 The government
asserted that the suggestion of the NGO to have a plan with rigid guidelines won’t be an
accurate choice as “need of the hour is to remain as dynamic as the virus” and adopt a
flexible and more efficient plan to deal with the pandemic.
Legal Provisions Involved

3
https://scroll.in/article/963376/here-is-why-pm-cares-should-be-scrutinised-by-the-cag-not-by-independent-
auditors
4
https://theprint.in/judiciary/existence-of-ndrf-doesnt-bar-creation-of-pm-cares-for-voluntary-donations-
centre-tells-sc/457660/
5
id