Delhi High Court has overturned an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the Income Tax Department to disclose information about the PM CARES Fund under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This decision has sparked a debate on the transparency and accountability of the PM CARES Fund, a public charitable trust aimed at providing relief during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court observed that the CIC lacked jurisdiction to mandate the disclosure of information as per Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to the confidentiality of assessees’ information. The court noted,
“In any case, even if they had the jurisdiction, the failure to give PM CARES, notice of hearing, would in itself have vitiated the impugned [order].”
The case originated from an RTI application filed by Mumbai-based activist Girish Mittal, who sought details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM CARES Fund. Mittal requested copies of all documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund for its exemption application, details of file notings granting approval, a list of all exemption applications filed before the IT Department from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, and information on any rejected applications along with the reasons for rejection.
The CIC’s order to provide this information was initially stayed by a coordinate bench in July 2022. The Delhi High Court’s ruling came as it allowed the plea moved by the CPIO of the IT Department, challenging the CIC’s order. The High Court emphasized that since the information sought by Mittal related to a third party, the PM CARES Fund should have been given a chance to be heard, as mandated by Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which requires the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before divulging information about an assessee, takes precedence over Section 22 of the RTI Act. The court stated,
“The satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is, therefore, necessary before such information can be divulged. That satisfaction cannot be abrogated to any other authority under a general Act for divulging the information sought for.”
Also read- Supreme Court Scrutinizes BSF Jurisdiction Expansion In Punjab (lawchakra.in)
Mittal’s RTI application was initially rejected by the CPIO/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Headquarter)(Exemption), citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information unrelated to public activity or interest and which could invade the privacy of an individual. The First Appellate Authority upheld this rejection, noting that although the PM CARES Fund is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, and is a body owned, controlled, and established by the Government of India, it is financed by donations from various sources and not by the government. Consequently, it was determined that the Fund is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Mittal then approached the CIC, challenging the Order of the First Appellate Authority. The CIC, in its decision, stated that the issue of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was being unnecessarily dragged into the matter since Mittal had filed the RTI Application with a public authority and not with the PM CARES Fund. The CIC directed the CPIO to provide information about the documents submitted by the Fund with its exemption application and copies of file notings granting the approval. However, it rejected Mittal’s request for information regarding other exemption applications.
This ruling by the Delhi High Court has significant implications for the transparency and accountability of the PM CARES Fund, highlighting the complexities involved in balancing the right to information with the confidentiality of third-party information. The decision also underscores the legal intricacies of the RTI Act and the Income Tax Act in the context of information disclosure by government bodies and funds.
Also read- Calcutta High Court Upholds Press Freedom | Grants Anticipatory Bail To Journalist (lawchakra.in)
