Divan: Our central point is when you have governmental functionaries, or high governmental functionaries in this case, can they create a structure that is apparently exempt from the Constitution or outside the reach of the Constitution?
Divan: The essence of our system is we have structures for accountability. Judicial review is absolutely central. There is parliamentary oversight, there is a Comptroller and Auditor General, there are a lot of checks and balances.
It is our understanding that you cannot have a structure that is exempt from the Constitution. The primary argument is the organization called PM CARES is nothing but "State", Divan argues.
Divan: If the Court comes to the conclusion that PM CARES is not "State", we have an alternative prayer that then PM. CARES cannot project that it is the "Government of India" in various respects
Divan recounts prayers, apart from including #PMCARES as "State", prayers also made to disclose audit reports on website, details of donations in every quarter including donor's names of those who donate Rs 1 lakh or any other amount as court may deem fit
Divan reads: This is part of transparency and good governance... disclose details of utilization of funds, resolutions on the expenditure of funds (reading from prayers)
If Court concludes that #PMCARES is not "State", then it should be restrained from using "Prime Minister", State emblem, "gov.in", PMO as official address, Divan.
Further secretarial support or support from offices of GOI cannot be extended, Divan
This is of a permanent character and it is not as if there is something that is happening and we need an emergency. The vision is that India needs institutions for the long term. It is a noble purpose. The issue is whether it is subject to constitutional limitations, Divan
The issue is that the "Prime Minister" is the settler. For ordinary people, it becomes a governmental fund, just by virtue of the name, Divan argues.
Divan reads objects of the Fund which include to support or undertake relief in relation to public health or any other kind of emergency, manmade or natural, funding relevant research, financial assistance, etc.
Hearing in a case questioning the legal status of #PMCARES Fund and whether it falls under the category of "State" under the Constitution is slated to continue at 2.15 pm.
Divan reads that the Trust is not created under the Constitution of India or any law by parliament or State legislature, that trust is not controlled or financed by govt (Centre or State), either direct or indirect in the functioning of the trust.
Divan reads from the clause that details contributors will not be divulged in the interest of privacy, that it would only be divulged for taxation purposes, that Trust would have the discretion to accept or refuse contributions
Divan: It is our understanding of the law that parties cannot contract out of the Constitution of India. The Constitution is elastic, imprimatur, and reach extend across India and to all functionaries.
You have many devices that seek to exclude judicial review. But Courts say that you cannot have such self-declarations to exempt judicial review, Divan argues.
Recitals and statements part of Clause 5.3. especially that members of Trust are govt functionaries is for administrative convenience and does not mean it is govt will not help, Divan says.
Divan: Can you have an ex officio collector, who is also functioning, set up a trust with other govt officials holding govt positions and say 'as far as this is concerned, this is a private trust and it has a laudable objective?'
If you see, you are creating a situation here where persons can contribute and they are completely immune from scrutiny because they (PM CARES) say we will not divulge ID citing privacy, Divan argues.
Divan reads that Trustees shall act in pro bono capacity, Prime Minister shall be chairperson, chairperson empowered to modify the constitution of Trustees through written instrument etc.
Divan reads from the relevant clause that Prime Minister's Office (PMO) shall provide administrative and secretarial support for the management and administration of the Trust.
The moment you use the word "ex officio" and say that these are the dominant persons, according to me, nothing further, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, is required to canvass the position that this is "State": Divan.
Just this much shows the pervasive control of the Central Govt. The moment you have ex officio, 4 members out of 7... no further elaborate argument is required. We have the guidance of the Supreme Court: Divan
Divan reads clause in "office bearers" of the Trust (Clause 11).
Divan: If this is "State", then all officers you appoint wrt to State have to go through rigour and discipline. If it is outside "State", if we are wrong, then it would not apply.
Divan reads clause on income, audit of accounts of Trust by independent auditors.
Divan: If this is "State" or nothing but a limb of the State, then the audit protocol will be as applicable to the State and not as applicable to a private company/ Trust
Divan: I am done with the Trust deed. I would like to continue with some documents mentioned. But before I do so, may I please invite attention... to what the "Trust" says.
Divan: I want to point a short thing. Please see you have "PM CARES" and State emblem on left side. This is how they project themselves. I am not saying it is good or bad...They also use the gov.in.
Use of emblem conveys that it belongs to GOI, that it will be subject to discipline under the Constitution or the laws of India, it is not going to be private where all transactions are opaque, Divan argues.
Divan makes submissions on how PM CARES was created and announced. Divan refers to a Press Info Bureau document dated March 28, 2020, seeking generous donation of funds amid the #Covid_19 pandemic.
Divan: It is a good thing that we have donations exempt. But it has to be within Indian law. This is pushed out by the PMO, there is a presumption that it is a Government of India announcement and that it is a structure under the Government of India.
Divan: He (Vice President) tells Rajya Sabha that govt has set up a fund under the PM CARES fund, that I have contributed one month's salary, I request members also to contribute one month's salary. This was the Vice President.
Divan says that there is an April letter by cabinet secretary, a top bureaucrat, urging for funds to be contributed to the PM CARES fund while referring to it as being set up by govt.
Divan refers to the Union Ministry of Defence request for donation of a part of salary; the appeal has the approval of the "Hon'ble Raksha Mantri", i.e. a trustee has also approved and sanctioned this, Divan adds.
I don't say there is anything wrong at all. I am showing that all of these are in the nature of different Ministries urging for contributions, Divan argues.
Divan highlights that contributions have been viewed as within the purview of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure. Divan reads a part that says that the "Govt of India has set up" the PM CARES.
Divan: I have covered most of the documents, there are certain others, will come back to them when I want to make specific submissions... I want to depart a little bit from the flow of arguments. Would request the court master to hand over compilation.
Divan reads the question posed in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas judgment: "Is the CSIR a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and if it is should this Court reverse a decision which has stood for over a quarter of a century?"
Divan continues reading the judgment: "... An ex-officio appointment means that the appointment is by virtue of the office; without any other warrant or appointment than that resulting from the holding of a particular office..."
Divan: I want to make some short comments on the judgment... I think this judgment really controls the field as far as we are concerned on two or three crucial factors. First, how do we deal with "ex officio"?
Divan: In our present case, it is four trustees, which is the majority. The second point, in CSIR it was the President or Prime Minister. In our case, it is the Prime Minister. Supreme Court says that subjugation of govt body is complete.
Divan: The expression (in the judgment) is that "the control of Govt in CSIR ubiquitous". Here, Prime Minister can remove trustees, change rules, everything can be done by the Prime Minister.
Divan (continues reading): No matter high the individual rises, the law is always above. We will say the Constitution is always above these high functionaries.
Divan (continues reading): Be you ever so high, the law of the Constitution is above you. The Constitution of India does not permit the functionaries to contract out of the Constitution.
Divan reads that Constitutional functionaries are public trustees, that constitutional functionaries cannot create a "cozy private enclave" which is beyond Constitutional scrutiny.
We are saying Constitution requires transparency, we are not saying there is quid pro quo like in Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. We are not going so far because the structure itself is faulty, Divan says.
Divan compares PM CARES to the guidelines in Ajay Hasia case. Notes that PM CARES office is located at PMO, officers assisting are from Prime Minister's Office who are doing it after being permitted to do so pro bono (according to an affidavit).
Next criterion in Ajay Hasia case is that functions of the entity are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. Divan argues that this is also satisfied when it comes to PM CARES
We are not able to find any factor to say that this (PM CARES) is not State except the self-certification, everything points to it being State, Divan argues.
Can a collector, during a disaster, get together with others or some Tehsildars and say there is an emergency, please contribute, we are of integrity but this is not "State"? Divan argues.
Those letters, communications, documents (regarding requests for contributions to PM CARES) annexed to the petition have not been contested on affidavit and no one has said this is wrong or that we have clarified, Divan argues.
Facilities used by the PM CARES Fund is also being financed by taxpayers which shows that is a govt instrumentality, PM CARES fund uses domain name gov.in, PM CARES uses emblem of India and nomenclature "Prime Minister", address is PMO, Divan argues
#PMCARES released Rs 1 crores to the State govts and UTs for migrant workers. The release of funds in such a manner is a function of Govt and PM CARES has performed that function, Divan argues
Divan: It is a good thing..but it is indicative of who this is really
PM CARES functions from PMO office, its functions are akin to public functions, it utilizes benefits, exemptions reserved for the State; it satisfies the tests in Ajay Hasia case (on what constitutes "govt instrumentalities"), Divan argues
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appears before a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna on behalf of doctors appearing in the #NEETPG exam seeking uploading of answer key.
Sr. Adv. Sankaranarayanan: For some reason a completely different method has been adopted with us. We don’t get to keep our question paper, answer sheets or the answer key. All we get is the roll number with our score.
Counsel appears before #SupremeCourt Bench led by Justice Chandrachud seeking directions for the vaccination of 13 inmates of a home maintained in Ghaziabad.
It was submitted that the Petitioner is a registered Charitable trust and among its objected maintains a home for orphans, destitute widows, abandoned & aged.
The home presently provides shelter to 13 inmates, some suffering from dementia, old age ailments and some of them are wheel chair bound. Some of the inmates were stated to have Aadhar Cards while the rest were found abandoned on the street.
Justice Chandrachud: A PIL has been filed under Article 32. Specific issue canvassed is during covid pandemic patients had to take recourse to taking medical facilities in private hospitals due to dearth of public infrastructure. #supremcourt#covid19
Justice DY Chandrachud: There were instances of overcharging and hapless patients In the circumstances the petitioners have relied upon certain instances where local bodies such as Pune Municipal Corp had issued notice to private hospitals for overcharging patients.
Justice DY Chandrachud: Mandamus has been sought to set up a mechanism by central govgt to scrutinise bills of patients who believe they have been overcharged. This conerns a wide strata of society. Issue notice , returnable after 4 weeks.
Supreme Court hears a plea by Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools with regard to access to technology by children who are attending online classes and funding needed for the same #supremecourt
Sr Adv Shyam Divan: this is not just about EWS students but about all. its a global problem, Under RTI Act there is no 100% compensation given to schools. burden gets transferred to fee paying students
Justice Chandrachud: we see our staff members who have children studied from one mobile phone. How many families can afford laptops? this is an important issue
Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan mentions matter regarding internet shutdowns before #SupremeCourt: This is an MA in the Anuradha Bhasin Matter. It was filed last year.
CJI Ramana: Already the internet has got.. what remains in this matter?
Sr. Adv. Dewan: We are seeking further directions for the effective compliance of your Lordships order.
For eg, Meghalaya is not even aware of the order.
CJI Ramana: Mr. Counsel, this judgment is in the #Kashmir context, we have already.. the govt. immediately has restored internet. What do you want again?