Delhi High Court quashes CIC order on PM Cares Fund information

The Delhi High Court on Monday quashed a Central Information Commission’s order (CIC) that asked the income tax authorities to furnish information and copies of documents submitted by the PM Cares Fund while applying for income tax exemptions.

While allowing the income tax department’s appeal, Justice Subramonium Prasad ruled that CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act and Section 138 (2) of the Income Tax Act prevails over Section 22 of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

"In the present case, the question which arose was whether Section 138(2) of the IT Act which also contains a non-obstante clause would override Section 22 of the RTI Act or not. In view of the fact that Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act mandates that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, it can be said that Section 138(2) of the IT Act would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act," the Court held.


Even if the CIC had the jurisdiction to direct the department to provide the information, the Commission's failure to give PM CARES notice of hearing would in itself have vitiated the order, the HC said.

Mumbai-based activist Girish Mittal had sought details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund in May 2020. The information was denied by the CPIO/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Headquarter)(Exemption) and appellate authority on the grounds that the information sought was personal in nature and was not related to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of an individual.

However, the CIC in April 2022 allowed the activists plea seeking all the documents submitted by the PM Cares Fund in its exemption application and copies of file notings granting the approval.

The IT department had then challenged the CIC’s order before the HC on the grounds that the information directed to be provided related to a third party (PM Cares Fund) which is a registered trust, and therefore, the CIC could not have been passed the order without giving the Fund an opportunity of being heard.

"The petitioner herein does not treat PM CARES Fund as an authority. Since the information sought for by the respondent relates to a third party, PM Cares Fund ought to have been heard. Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribes that any information related to a third party can only be divulged after giving notice to the said third party. In view of the above, the CIC ought to have followed the procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering for grant of information as sought for by the Respondent herein," the judgment stated.