-----------------------------------------

Responding to 8.2 PM CARES Fund:

> The total amount of funds donated and the names of donors have not been publicly disclosed, and the fund is privately audited

False. It has been disclosed. For both years (2019-20 and 2020-21).

1. 2019-20: https://www.pmcares.gov.in/assets/donation/pdf/Audited%20Sta...

2. 2020-21: https://www.pmcares.gov.in/assets/donation/pdf/Audited_State...

> names of donors have not been publicly disclosed

Why should names of donors be disclosed? It is a donation for a charitable cause. Charity is typically done anonymously unless the donor explicitly requests to be named.

> fund is privately audited

I don't see anything wrong with that. It is the same as the erstwhile Prime Minister's National Relief Fund which ran for 70 years and introduced by the Congress Party.

> The Government of India had initially claimed that the fund is a private fund, and denied that the PM CARES Fund is a public fund for the purposes of transparency laws such as the Right to Information Act 2005, even though the Fund uses government infrastructure and the national emblem of the Government of India

This is fake news spread by NDTV. The Government did not say anywhere that it was a private fund. This was deliberate misinterpretation of Clause 5.3 of the Trust Deed [1] by NDTV. It was registered as a "Public Charitable Trust" [2]

Yes it does not come under RTI just like the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund which was setup by the Congress Party but was not even registered.

The Fund using Government infrastructure or National Emblem of GoI has no bearing on it to being included under RTI. Even the earlier Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, which was unregistered entity, carried the National Emblem and used Government infrastructure and was not under RTI. So why was no issue raised on that? The PM CARES Fund is not an institution that is established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. And the funds are not used for day-to-day functioning of the Government of India. Hence, it cannot come under RTI. Now would it be good if the Government brought it under RTI? Yes, it would be good as it would quell all doubts regarding the fund. Can it be forced to bring it under RTI? No it cannot be. There is already precedent set by Prime Minister's National Relief Fund which functioned for 70 years as an unregistered entity with no audits being carried out by the CAG. At least the PM CARES fund is registered and goes through scrutiny by independent auditors from a panel suggested by the CAG. I would definitely vote for more transparency in the fund, but I wouldn't be shocked/surprised if this petition was struck down by the Courts.

---------------------------

> 8.1 Rafale Scam: The supreme court of India headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi gave clean chit to government without requiring any investigation. Government recommended the same judge for Rajya Sabha right after his retirement from the court. I cant say how its morally/ethically right for a judge to accept post-retirement benefit from government and how you can guarantee that the decisions from that judge were unbiased. [6] [7]

Yes you can question the ethics/morality of this. But this is not the first time such a thing has been done. CJIs/Judges taking up jobs in the Government (or even joining Political Parties) post-retirement is not new. And in my opinion it should be avoided to safeguard sanctity of institutions s/he was part of. But you cannot restrict a private citizen from exercising his fundamental rights. The Judge, after retirement, is a private citizen who has all the Rights to do as he pleases. Even if that means joining a Political Party.

However, this cannot be the basis for questioning a judgement based on facts. You are not just insinuating that the CJI acted with bias but also the other 2 Justices of the Supreme Court of India to not have exercised their independent judgement but were coerced by the Government of India. Don't forget that it wasn't Ranjan Gogoi alone but 2 other Justices who sat on the bench. It was decided by all 3 of them. It was unanimous verdict. Not a tie breaker where the CJI had to involve.

The Chief Justice of India or any Court of Law is not duty bound to conduct/direct conducting of investigations in an "alleged" scam without prima facie evidence. In fact, it is the duty of the petitioner to produce evidence "after" conducting investigations "prior" to submitting the petition. Is it the job of the Court to order investigative agencies to investigate random petitions, with no prima facie evidence, filed by petitioners? Can I make a wild accusation against the Government of India, move a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court and expect the Court to direct investigative agencies to investigate the Government just to satisfy my wishes? Then I can easily get 1000s of petitions filed with frivolous accusations and turn the Court and the Government into a circus show. You are expecting too much from the Court. The Court only orders investigations if it finds prima-facie evidence that there is some malpractice or illegality. It could not find any in this case.