Bombay High Court refuses to monitor CM Relief Fund, says public can use RTI for accountability

The Bombay High Court has declined to intervene in the management and disbursement of the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (CMRF), stating that it is a matter of policy decision. However, the Court expressed hope and trust that the contributions to the fund are being used strictly for their intended purposes and with full transparency. 

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Mumbai-based NGO, Public Concern for Governance Trust. The PIL sought direction that the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (CMRF) be utilised solely and exclusively for assisting victims of natural calamities, disasters, and upheavals — as was originally intended at the time of its formation in 1966.  

The petitioners, represented by advocate Soma Singh, challenged a Government Resolution dated November 15, 2001, which expanded the fund’s objectives and laid down the rules governing the CMRF’s Managing Committee. They contended that the expanded scope deviated from the fund’s original purpose and urged the court to restore its exclusive use for disaster relief. 

Additionally, the petitioners sought the constitution of an independent oversight committee comprising public-spirited individuals, along with mandatory audits and regular publication of the CMRF’s financial statements and transaction details for public scrutiny. 

Advocate Singh argued that public donations are being collected under the belief that the funds are meant solely for disaster relief but are instead being diverted to unrelated purposes like construction of cultural halls and sponsoring tournaments. The petitioners also demanded the formation of an independent committee to oversee disbursements and greater public access to fund accounts. 

In a July 31, 2025, order, made available on Tuesday (August 5, 2025), the Bench observed, “We are unable to grant any relief to the Petitioners in the instant Petition. This Court otherwise cannot monitor the operation of CMRF. However, since the transactions in the Fund can always be accessed by members of public through seeking information under the RTI Act, if any discrepancy is noticed in utilisation of amounts in the CMRF, the issue can be raised by filing a separate Petition.”  

The Bench further said, “As of now, we are unable to grant any relief in favour of the Petitioners in the present Petition. We, however, hope and trust that the contributions made to the CMRF are utilised strictly for the objectives and purpose for which the Fund is operated and that there is no deviation in any case. With the above observations, the PIL Petition is disposed of.”  

‘No legal bar on expanding fund’s objectives’

The court held that there is no legal bar on the State expanding the fund’s objectives. “We are satisfied that the allegation of non-maintenance of transparency in operation of CMRF appeared to be misplaced. It appears that the accounts of the Trusts are audited by the Chartered Accountant and income tax returns are also filed. Also, entire information relating to the Fund is available in the public domain and any citizens can seek information relating to any transactions under the RTI Act.”  

The court further said that it is also clarified in the affidavit-in-reply that whenever donations are made for providing assistance to the victims of natural calamities, the contributions are maintained under a separate head and it is ensured that all such contributions are used only for providing assistance to the victims of that natural calamity. 

“The affidavit-in-reply also deals with various allegations raised in the Petition for grant of assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities. It is pointed out that providing assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities is one of the objectives of the Trust and of CMRF,” the judgement said.  

The court also declined to entertain the delayed challenge to the 2001 GR, noting the PIL was filed in 2009 — eight years after the expansion of the CMRF’s scope. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the judges observed that even PILs are subject to the principles of delay and laches. 

On the matter of transparency, the court said the fund is subject to annual audits, income tax filings, and its records are accessible to the public through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. “We are satisfied that the allegation of non-maintenance of transparency in the operation of CMRF appears to be misplaced,” the bench noted. 

Government pleaders Neha Bhide and O.A. Chandurkar defended the fund’s functioning, asserting that specific donations earmarked for disaster relief are kept under a separate head and used only for that purpose. They also clarified that cultural and sporting initiatives are legitimate objectives under the revised mandate of the fund.