The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the disclosure of information related to the PM CARES Fund in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application. The court’s decision comes after the CIC’s directive, which was issued following an RTI application seeking details about the fund. The high court, in its judgment, noted certain procedural lapses and underscored the importance of adhering to the legal processes, including notifying the PM CARES Fund before any disclosure.
The background of the case involves an RTI application filed by Girish Mittal, seeking information pertaining to an exemption application under the Income Tax Act related to the PM CARES Fund, as well as other exemption applications filed before the Income Tax Authority during a specific period. The CIC had ordered the disclosure of information regarding the PM CARES Fund, prompting the Income Tax Department to challenge the order in the Delhi High Court.
The high court, in its recent judgment, pointed out a critical procedural flaw in the CIC’s order. It noted that the information sought by the RTI applicant had been requested from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Income Tax Department and not directly from the PM CARES Fund. The court observed that the Income Tax Department does not consider the PM CARES Fund as an authority. As per the Right to Information (RTI) Act, when information is related to a third party, in this case, the PM CARES Fund, the concerned party must be given notice, as stipulated in Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the CIC should have followed the proper procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering the disclosure of information related to the PM CARES Fund. The court highlighted the need for the PM CARES Fund to be heard before any decision on the disclosure of information.
Furthermore, the court took into account Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that information concerning an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of certain authorities within the Income Tax Department. The court noted that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct the furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Even if the CIC had jurisdiction, the failure to give notice to the PM CARES Fund before the hearing would have vitiated the impugned order, according to the judgment.
The high court, in its 23-page order, allowed the petition filed by the Income Tax authority challenging the CIC’s order issued on April 27, 2022. The court set aside the CIC’s order, highlighting the procedural lapses and the lack of jurisdiction in directing the furnishing of information as sought in the RTI application.
It’s essential to note that the issue of whether the PM CARES Fund qualifies as a public authority is presently pending before a division bench of the Delhi High Court. This underscores the ongoing debate and legal scrutiny surrounding the nature and transparency of the PM CARES Fund, especially in the context of its status as a public authority subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
The PM CARES Fund, created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been a subject of public interest and scrutiny. Questions have been raised about its transparency, accountability, and the nature of its operations. The recent legal developments highlight the complexities involved in seeking information related to the fund through the RTI Act and the need for a thorough and transparent legal process.
The court’s decision also brings attention to the broader issue of balancing transparency and the protection of third-party interests, such as private entities or funds, under the RTI Act. While transparency and accountability are crucial principles in governance, it is equally important to ensure that legal procedures are followed and the rights of involved parties are respected.
As the legal proceedings continue and the debate over the status of the PM CARES Fund unfolds, it remains a significant case that reflects the challenges and complexities in ensuring transparency and accountability in public funds and initiatives. The outcome of the division bench’s consideration of the PM CARES Fund’s status as a public authority will likely have broader implications for the transparency and disclosure of information related to such funds in the future.
