Lokpal rejects PM CARES Fund complaint for lack of evidence, allows: A practical reader guide

K'taka: Three arrested for gang-rape of tribal woman from West Bengal

The Lokpal has disposed of a complaint alleging misuse of official position and irregularities in the collection, administration and handling of the PM CARES Fund, saying that the complainant failed to provide any specific material facts or prima facie evidence for it to order a corruption probe.

However, the anti-corruption ombudsman allowed the complainant to file a fresh complaint with “credible” and “verifiable” relevant facts and material.

The anti-corruption body gave the complainant liberty to approach it again with a properly framed complaint containing material facts and particulars of alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the chairperson (ex-officio) of the PM CARES Fund while Union ministers of defence, home and finance—Rajnath Singh, Amit Shah and Nirmala Sitharaman, respectively—are ex-officio trustees of the Fund. In an order passed on October 9, seen by HT, a bench headed by Lokpal chairperson justice AM Khanwilkar, said the complaint’s contents do not justify ordering a preliminary inquiry in the matter.

It refused to indulge in a “roving or misdirected” inquiry.

The complainant had approached the Lokpal in June with allegations that there were irregularities in collection, administration and handling of contributions to the PM CARES Fund, while seeking a probe against the public servants associated with it, use of government machinery, foreign contributions, audit arrangements, etc.

Asserting that the complainant’s explanation falls short of the requirements, the Lokpal bench said that “the complainant ought to present a properly drawn complaint containing all the relevant facts and material particulars arranged in sequence, which must mention credible and verifiable and if accepted at its face value, will be indicative of commission of offence (s), so as to persuade the Lokpal to proceed further in the matter”. Such an exercise, it said, “would border on indulging in a roving and misdirected inquiry.”