HC stays CIC's order to PMNRF to disclose institutional donors

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Nov 15 2016 | 6:14 PM IST
Delhi High Court today stayed the operation of a 2012 order passed by Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) to disclose the details of institutional donors to the fund.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra stayed the CIC's order till further direction saying the matter "requires consideration".
The bench was hearing PMNRF's plea challenging the single judge's verdict of November 19 last year which had dismissed its petition against the CIC order.
"This matter requires consideration," the bench said, adding, "the CIC order dated June 6, 2012 had remained stayed during the pendency of writ petition (filed by PMNRF before single judge). The same shall continue until further orders".
The bench fixed the matter for hearing on February 13 next year.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for PMNRF, told the bench that it was an "important matter".
PMNRF had approached the single judge in 2012 challenging the CIC's order in which it had said, "we are of the view that the details of the institutional donors should be placed in public domain and disclosed to the appellant (Aseem Takyar)".
However, the CIC had said it would not be appropriate to direct the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of PMNRF to disclose the names of the recipients and beneficiaries of the fund.
Takyar had sought information regarding PMNRF including the names and particulars of donors and beneficiaries during the period from 2009 to 2011 under the RTI Act.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of PMNRF had provided some information to Takyar but had denied the details regarding donors and beneficiaries of the fund. Takyar had then approached the CIC.
After the CIC order, PMNRF had moved the high court when a single judge bench dismissed its plea saying the CIC's order was "well balanced".
PMNRF had challenged the single judge order saying such information was private and must be kept confidential.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 15 2016 | 6:14 PM IST

Next Story