It is a question that has echoed through the corridors of power, been debated in legal circles, and frustrated citizens for over six years now: Why does a fund, established in the name of the Prime Minister, holding thousands of crores of public money, operate in a shroud of secrecy? The recent release of the PM CARES Fund's audited accounts for 2023-24 and 2024-25 has reignited this debate, turning a simmering question into a full-blown blaze of public scrutiny.
The numbers are staggering. The corpus of the PM CARES Fund has swelled to a record Rs. 8,452 crore as of March 31, 2025. Yet, the expenditure during the 2024-25 financial year was a paltry Rs. 87.85 lakh, a mere 0.01% of its total available funds. This is while the country has grappled with devastating natural calamities and ongoing humanitarian needs. The primary reason for this increase wasn't just donations (which, in fact, fell by nearly 30%), but interest earned on funds parked in fixed deposits and a significant, unexplained entry of Rs. 324 crore in "refunds from implementing agencies". This paints a picture of a fund that is a master at accumulating money but seems paralysed when it comes to disbursing it for the very purpose it was created for—providing relief during emergencies.
This brings us to the core of the matter, the "series of questions" your prompt raises: Why is the PM CARES Fund a law unto itself, seemingly beyond the reach of the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny, and even the courts? As a veteran observer of governance and transparency, I can attest that the case of the PM CARES Fund is a masterclass in how to legally insulate a public entity from public accountability.
The Legal Maze: Why RTI is Denied
The PM CARES Fund was registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908. The government's primary argument, which has been upheld through various legal challenges, is that because it is a trust and not a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, it is not obliged to respond to RTI queries.
This is the fundamental loophole. The RTI Act was designed to bring transparency to "public authorities"—bodies established by the Constitution, law, or by government notification. By registering the fund as a private trust, the government argued it sits outside this definition, even though it is chaired by the Prime Minister and has the Defence, Home, and Finance Ministers as its trustees.
The legal interpretation has been complicated. In a recent oral observation, the Delhi High Court stated that even if the fund were treated as a "state" or government-linked entity, it would not lose its "right to privacy" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects third-party personal information. This observation suggests that donor privacy could be a valid reason to deny detailed information, a point that transparency activists find deeply problematic for a fund that handles public money.
The Supreme Court, too, has dealt a blow to those seeking transparency. In March 2026, it dismissed a PIL filed by a hosiery trader from Ludhiana that sought to bring the fund under the RTI ambit, dismissing the petition as "frivolous" and "scandalous" and even famously telling the petitioner to "go back to Ludhiana and sell sweaters". While the court's ire was directed at the seemingly orchestrated nature of the PIL, its dismissal closed a significant legal avenue for challenging the fund's opaque status.
The PM CARES Fund was registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908. The government's primary argument, which has been upheld through various legal challenges, is that because it is a trust and not a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, it is not obliged to respond to RTI queries.
This is the fundamental loophole. The RTI Act was designed to bring transparency to "public authorities"—bodies established by the Constitution, law, or by government notification. By registering the fund as a private trust, the government argued it sits outside this definition, even though it is chaired by the Prime Minister and has the Defence, Home, and Finance Ministers as its trustees.
The legal interpretation has been complicated. In a recent oral observation, the Delhi High Court stated that even if the fund were treated as a "state" or government-linked entity, it would not lose its "right to privacy" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects third-party personal information. This observation suggests that donor privacy could be a valid reason to deny detailed information, a point that transparency activists find deeply problematic for a fund that handles public money.
The Supreme Court, too, has dealt a blow to those seeking transparency. In March 2026, it dismissed a PIL filed by a hosiery trader from Ludhiana that sought to bring the fund under the RTI ambit, dismissing the petition as "frivolous" and "scandalous" and even famously telling the petitioner to "go back to Ludhiana and sell sweaters". While the court's ire was directed at the seemingly orchestrated nature of the PIL, its dismissal closed a significant legal avenue for challenging the fund's opaque status.
Parliament's Hands Are Tied
If the courts have been a tough nut to crack, the Parliament has been effectively neutered. In a move that has sparked widespread condemnation, it was reported in January 2026 that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to not allow questions related to the PM CARES Fund, the PMNRF, and the National Defence Fund. The stated reason? These funds are "constituted entirely with voluntary public contribution and not from any allocation out of the Consolidated Fund of India".
This is a breathtakingly convenient interpretation of accountability. The Opposition, and even activists, have pointed out that this is "Electoral Bonds 2.0," suggesting the funds could be used for quid pro quo and regulatory inaction. This directive effectively gagged the elected representatives of the people from even asking basic questions about where these thousands of crores came from and where they went. If MPs cannot question the fund in Parliament, what is the point of parliamentary democracy?
If the courts have been a tough nut to crack, the Parliament has been effectively neutered. In a move that has sparked widespread condemnation, it was reported in January 2026 that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to not allow questions related to the PM CARES Fund, the PMNRF, and the National Defence Fund. The stated reason? These funds are "constituted entirely with voluntary public contribution and not from any allocation out of the Consolidated Fund of India".
This is a breathtakingly convenient interpretation of accountability. The Opposition, and even activists, have pointed out that this is "Electoral Bonds 2.0," suggesting the funds could be used for quid pro quo and regulatory inaction. This directive effectively gagged the elected representatives of the people from even asking basic questions about where these thousands of crores came from and where they went. If MPs cannot question the fund in Parliament, what is the point of parliamentary democracy?
Is it The Prime Minister's Personal Fund?
The question you posed is pertinent: "Is it the Prime Minister's personal fund?" Technically, no. It is a public charitable trust chaired by the PM. However, practically, its governance is entirely under the control of the PMO. The trustees are all senior government ministers. The trust deed has never been made fully public. It is treated as a "private" entity when it's convenient to avoid RTI, yet it uses the government's machinery, national emblem, and official communication channels to collect funds.
As RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd.) pointed out, "The PM heads the trust. The address of the fund is the PMO. Government servants are involved in its functioning. We saw how the entire government paraphernalia was activated in 2020 to attract contributions. This included all ministries and even Indian missions." It uses public infrastructure but refuses public scrutiny. This is the core of the problem.
The question you posed is pertinent: "Is it the Prime Minister's personal fund?" Technically, no. It is a public charitable trust chaired by the PM. However, practically, its governance is entirely under the control of the PMO. The trustees are all senior government ministers. The trust deed has never been made fully public. It is treated as a "private" entity when it's convenient to avoid RTI, yet it uses the government's machinery, national emblem, and official communication channels to collect funds.
As RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd.) pointed out, "The PM heads the trust. The address of the fund is the PMO. Government servants are involved in its functioning. We saw how the entire government paraphernalia was activated in 2020 to attract contributions. This included all ministries and even Indian missions." It uses public infrastructure but refuses public scrutiny. This is the core of the problem.
The Question of Audit
The current audit has also raised eyebrows. The audit was conducted by a private chartered accountant firm, KKC & Associates LLP, and not by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. Activists like Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative have demanded a performance audit by the CAG, arguing that private auditors won't ask the tough questions about the efficiency and purpose of the fund's spending—or lack thereof. The fact that the accompanying notes to the audit report were not uploaded has only added to the suspicion.
Conclusion: The Call for Transparency
The PM CARES Fund has become a symbol of a deep-seated problem in Indian governance: the use of legal technicalities to create a zone of absolute secrecy for a fund that is indisputably public in its purpose and source. The "C" in its name stands for "Citizen's." The entire nation was called upon to donate.
The arguments for transparency are overwhelming. More than Rs. 2,000 crore was donated by public sector undertakings (PSUs) through their CSR funds—this is unequivocally public money. Individual citizens and government employees also contributed. They deserve to know how every single rupee of that money was spent. They deserve to know the identity of major donors, the criteria for selecting beneficiaries, and the detailed breakdown of expenditures.
As Anjali Bhardwaj, a prominent RTI activist, succinctly put it: "Why is the PMCARES Fund keeping such large sums of money idle?" and "Why have accompanying notes to the audit report not been uploaded?". These are not frivolous questions; they are the bedrock of accountability in a democratic society.
The government's defence—that the fund was not created out of the Consolidated Fund—is a red herring. Public money is not just that which is allocated by the parliament. It is any money collected from the public in the name of the public. Until the PM CARES Fund is subjected to the same transparency norms as every other government body, the unanswered questions will only fester, breeding cynicism and distrust in the very institutions designed to serve the people.
The PM CARES Fund has become a symbol of a deep-seated problem in Indian governance: the use of legal technicalities to create a zone of absolute secrecy for a fund that is indisputably public in its purpose and source. The "C" in its name stands for "Citizen's." The entire nation was called upon to donate.
The arguments for transparency are overwhelming. More than Rs. 2,000 crore was donated by public sector undertakings (PSUs) through their CSR funds—this is unequivocally public money. Individual citizens and government employees also contributed. They deserve to know how every single rupee of that money was spent. They deserve to know the identity of major donors, the criteria for selecting beneficiaries, and the detailed breakdown of expenditures.
As Anjali Bhardwaj, a prominent RTI activist, succinctly put it: "Why is the PMCARES Fund keeping such large sums of money idle?" and "Why have accompanying notes to the audit report not been uploaded?". These are not frivolous questions; they are the bedrock of accountability in a democratic society.
The government's defence—that the fund was not created out of the Consolidated Fund—is a red herring. Public money is not just that which is allocated by the parliament. It is any money collected from the public in the name of the public. Until the PM CARES Fund is subjected to the same transparency norms as every other government body, the unanswered questions will only fester, breeding cynicism and distrust in the very institutions designed to serve the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment