Frontline: Delhi: Wednesday, 25 February 2026.
After maintaining that the PM-CARES fund is not subject to the RTI Act, the Centre has gone a step further, arguing that it cannot be questioned in Parliament either. What, then, is the government reluctant to disclose?
The Prime Minister’s
Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM-CARES) fund has been
controversial ever since it was announced on March 28, 2020. The fund was
launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the 21-day countrywide lockdown
shortly after the WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Modi stated that the
fund’s primary objective was to deal with “any kind of emergency or distress
situation, like that posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to
the affected.”
But the manner in which the fund was set up and the alleged secrecy around its functioning have given rise to questions that have become all the more pertinent after the PMO stated in a communication to the Lok Sabha Secretariat during the Budget Session of Parliament recently that questions on the fund cannot be taken up in the House. The PMO added that questions on the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and the National Disaster Fund (NDF) also cannot be taken up because all three constitute voluntary public contributions and do not draw from the consolidated fund of India.
The PMO cited Rule 41(2)(viii) and Rule 41(2)(xvii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. While Rule 41(2)(viii) lays down that questions should not relate to matters not primarily the concern of the government of India, Rule 41(2)(xvii) says that questions should not deal with bodies not primarily responsible to the government of India.
The PMO’s communication has been criticised as undermining Parliament’s authority and its role in overseeing government functioning.
P.D.T. Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, said, “The PMO cannot ask the Lok Sabha Secretariat to not allow particular kinds of questions.... Questions are admitted or disallowed by the Speaker. It is the sole prerogative of the Speaker. The questions have to conform to definite rules.”
Achary added : “After all, Parliament is supreme and the government or the executive is responsible to Parliament, which is endowed with the authority and the task to scrutinise the executive’s functioning.
Transparency activists have questioned the nature of the PM-CARES fund as a public charitable trust and the Centre’s insistence that it is not a government body and does not come under the RTI Act. They have taken the issue to court.
The fund was registered on March 27, 2020, as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908. The Prime Minister is its chairman and members include the Defence Minister, the Home Minister, and the Finance Minister.
It accepts voluntary contributions by individuals and organisations including corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds from private companies and public sector undertakings (PSUs). However, contributions flowing out of budgetary sources of PSUs are not accepted.
The fund is exempt from all provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, and accepts foreign donations from both individuals and organisations. It is also exempt from income tax as per Section 10(23)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Contributions by private companies or PSUs qualify as CSR expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, and are also exempt from the provisions of Section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
‘Not under government control’
The Centre has insisted that the PM-CARES fund cannot be defined as a public authority under the RTI Act. The PMO told the Delhi High Court in an affidavit in January 2023 that “this trust is neither intended to be nor is in fact owned, controlled, or substantially financed by any government nor any instrument of the government. There is no control of either the Central government or any State governments, either directly or indirectly, in functioning of the trust.”
It said that the fund cannot be defined under the ambit of the “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution, stressing that it was not created by or under the Constitution, by Parliament, or by any State legislature.
It emphasised that contributions to the fund are voluntary, with no remote nexus between its corpus fund and the consolidated fund of India. It added that the grants sanctioned from the fund and its audit reports are available on pmcares.gov.in.
The affidavit further stated that the fund’s administration is based on the pattern of the PMNRF (also chaired by the Prime Minister), which also uses the national emblem and the official domain “gov.in”.
However, it said that this
does not indicate government control: “The composition of the Board of Trustees
consisting of holders of public office ex officio is merely for administrative
convenience and for smooth succession to the trusteeship and is neither
intended to be nor in fact result into any governmental control in the
functioning of the Trust.”
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court on January 13, 2026, observed that although the PM-CARES fund is a “juristic or government entity”, it cannot be denied the right to privacy under the RTI Act. The court was hearing a petition challenging a single judge bench’s decision from 2022 quashing a Central Information Commission (CIC) order that directed disclosure of fund details. (On April 27, 2022, the CIC directed the Income Tax department to provide details of tax exemptions granted to the PM-CARES fund to the RTI activist Girish Mittal. The order was set aside by the single judge bench in July 2022. Mittal appealed against it.)
Transparency activists hope that this case does not meet the same fate as the case relating to the PMNRF. In 2015, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court had allowed the disclosure of institutional donors of the PMNRF, which the government appealed against. In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on the matter: Justice Ravindra Bhat concluded that the PMNRF was a public authority, while Justice Sunil Gaur held a dissenting view. There has been no further progress in the matter.
Both the 2015 decision and Justice Bhat’s opinion are now significant because the government has repeatedly defended the PM-CARES fund’s initiation and administration by drawing comparisons with the PMNRF.
A narrow interpretation of public authority
Venkatesh Nayak, an intervenor in the PM-CARES fund case and director of the India office of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, said that the government’s argument as to why the RTI Act is not applicable is extremely worrisome because of its narrow interpretation of public authority.
“The purpose of the fund is a distinctly public one. It is not meant to benefit any restricted category of people. What is the information that people require about the fund? Who donated how much? Who benefited, and how? What are the criteria for assistance? These questions need to be answered. The fund should be as transparent as possible. So, why this secrecy?” Nayak asked.
Activists highlight that the fund uses the national emblem and is administered by government machinery, making it accountable to people.
The transparency rights activist and navy veteran Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd) said, “The Prime Minister 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. All information about setting up the fund, the Prime Minister and other government functionaries’ appeals, and updates on contributions were made available through the Union government-run Press Information Bureau.”
Batra added: “If this is a public charitable trust, as claimed by the government, then it is akin to an NGO, and an NGO does not have this kind of official infrastructure and paraphernalia to collect funds and disburse money.”
He has filed several RTI
applications since the fund was set up, seeking information about the
discussions preceding its creation, details about contributions and disbursals,
and the use of government machinery. In the majority of its replies, the government
refused to share information, maintaining that the fund is not a public
authority.
“The government machinery was used in a big way to encourage contributions. Various ministries and departments were roped in. The Prime Minister himself addressed the Indian embassies and High Commissions and asked them to help attract contributions,” said Batra.
Questioning the fund’s foundations
Questioning the manner in which the fund was set up, activists ask why it was needed in the first place when the PMNRF already existed. (The PMNRF also gets voluntary contributions and is meant for disaster mitigation).
The response to an RTI application filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj revealed that the PM-CARES fund was not preceded by discussion or approval by the Cabinet. The RTI query was made to the Cabinet Secretariat on June 17, 2020. The reply on June 29, 2020, stated: “As per inputs received from [our] office, there was no agenda item in any Cabinet meeting specifically related to creation of PM-CARES fund.”
Activists point out that rules were also changed so that corporates could show donations to the fund as CSR initiatives. On the same day the fund was announced, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued a clarification that the fund was eligible for CSR activities under item number (viii) of Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013. Soon, there was a flurry of donations from private companies and PSUs.
The fund has received thousands of crores since its inception. The first contribution of Rs.2.25 lakh was made by the Prime Minister. As per the first receipt and payments account, the fund garnered a whopping Rs.3,076 crore by March 31, 2020. Several government departments and PSUs declared that their employees would donate one day’s salary to the fund. Funds from the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) for two years were also diverted to the PM-CARES fund. Indian embassies and High Commissions also publicised the fund and invited contributions. In the last audited report for the period ended March 31, 2023, the corpus of the fund amounted to over Rs.6,283 crore.
Critics say that the government has shared the bare minimum about the fund’s donations and disbursals aggregate figures of the money that has come in, the money spent, and the remaining balance are provided under the annual receipts and payment account details and demand that the full audited reports be made available in public domain.
“What is extremely concerning is that thousands of crores under CSR money has been contributed by PSUs. This is actually public money. So, the auditing should be done by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India instead of a private auditor,” said Nayak.
He added: “When an institution like a registered society or a trust puts out is audit report, it is not a one or two-page document. It is lengthy and has the auditor’s observations on what kinds of expenditure are completely alright and which are problematic, what could be changed, and advice for the future. We do not have any such information in the reports of the PM-CARES fund.”
According to the fund’s website, it has an independent auditor; the trustees of the fund, during their second meeting held on April 23, 2020, decided to appoint SARC & Associates, Chartered Accountants, New Delhi, for the purpose. There is no statutory period prescribed for the audit under the Income Tax Act, but it is stated that it will be conducted at the end of the financial year.
Batra highlighted that the latest account details on the fund’s website is for the period ended on March 31, 2023. “The audit report has not been updated since then. Also, the website states that the trustees of the fund decided in their second meeting on April 23, 2020, that SARC & Associates would be appointed for three years. But the auditor continues to be the same,” he said.
It is a striking irony that a fund that the public contributes to and which is meant for the public good remains shielded from public scrutiny.
After maintaining that the PM-CARES fund is not subject to the RTI Act, the Centre has gone a step further, arguing that it cannot be questioned in Parliament either. What, then, is the government reluctant to disclose?
 |
| People wait outside a COVID-19 containment zone in Khetri, outskirts of Guwahati, on June 5, 2021. Photo Credit: Ritu Raj Konwar |
But the manner in which the fund was set up and the alleged secrecy around its functioning have given rise to questions that have become all the more pertinent after the PMO stated in a communication to the Lok Sabha Secretariat during the Budget Session of Parliament recently that questions on the fund cannot be taken up in the House. The PMO added that questions on the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and the National Disaster Fund (NDF) also cannot be taken up because all three constitute voluntary public contributions and do not draw from the consolidated fund of India.
The PMO cited Rule 41(2)(viii) and Rule 41(2)(xvii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. While Rule 41(2)(viii) lays down that questions should not relate to matters not primarily the concern of the government of India, Rule 41(2)(xvii) says that questions should not deal with bodies not primarily responsible to the government of India.
The PMO’s communication has been criticised as undermining Parliament’s authority and its role in overseeing government functioning.
P.D.T. Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, said, “The PMO cannot ask the Lok Sabha Secretariat to not allow particular kinds of questions.... Questions are admitted or disallowed by the Speaker. It is the sole prerogative of the Speaker. The questions have to conform to definite rules.”
Achary added : “After all, Parliament is supreme and the government or the executive is responsible to Parliament, which is endowed with the authority and the task to scrutinise the executive’s functioning.
Transparency activists have questioned the nature of the PM-CARES fund as a public charitable trust and the Centre’s insistence that it is not a government body and does not come under the RTI Act. They have taken the issue to court.
The fund was registered on March 27, 2020, as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908. The Prime Minister is its chairman and members include the Defence Minister, the Home Minister, and the Finance Minister.
It accepts voluntary contributions by individuals and organisations including corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds from private companies and public sector undertakings (PSUs). However, contributions flowing out of budgetary sources of PSUs are not accepted.
The fund is exempt from all provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, and accepts foreign donations from both individuals and organisations. It is also exempt from income tax as per Section 10(23)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Contributions by private companies or PSUs qualify as CSR expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, and are also exempt from the provisions of Section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
‘Not under government control’
The Centre has insisted that the PM-CARES fund cannot be defined as a public authority under the RTI Act. The PMO told the Delhi High Court in an affidavit in January 2023 that “this trust is neither intended to be nor is in fact owned, controlled, or substantially financed by any government nor any instrument of the government. There is no control of either the Central government or any State governments, either directly or indirectly, in functioning of the trust.”
It said that the fund cannot be defined under the ambit of the “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution, stressing that it was not created by or under the Constitution, by Parliament, or by any State legislature.
It emphasised that contributions to the fund are voluntary, with no remote nexus between its corpus fund and the consolidated fund of India. It added that the grants sanctioned from the fund and its audit reports are available on pmcares.gov.in.
The affidavit further stated that the fund’s administration is based on the pattern of the PMNRF (also chaired by the Prime Minister), which also uses the national emblem and the official domain “gov.in”.
 |
| Prime Minister Narendra Modi greets health workers at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, during the COVID-19 pandemic, on October 21, 2021. | Photo Credit: AFP/PIB |
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court on January 13, 2026, observed that although the PM-CARES fund is a “juristic or government entity”, it cannot be denied the right to privacy under the RTI Act. The court was hearing a petition challenging a single judge bench’s decision from 2022 quashing a Central Information Commission (CIC) order that directed disclosure of fund details. (On April 27, 2022, the CIC directed the Income Tax department to provide details of tax exemptions granted to the PM-CARES fund to the RTI activist Girish Mittal. The order was set aside by the single judge bench in July 2022. Mittal appealed against it.)
Transparency activists hope that this case does not meet the same fate as the case relating to the PMNRF. In 2015, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court had allowed the disclosure of institutional donors of the PMNRF, which the government appealed against. In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on the matter: Justice Ravindra Bhat concluded that the PMNRF was a public authority, while Justice Sunil Gaur held a dissenting view. There has been no further progress in the matter.
Both the 2015 decision and Justice Bhat’s opinion are now significant because the government has repeatedly defended the PM-CARES fund’s initiation and administration by drawing comparisons with the PMNRF.
A narrow interpretation of public authority
Venkatesh Nayak, an intervenor in the PM-CARES fund case and director of the India office of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, said that the government’s argument as to why the RTI Act is not applicable is extremely worrisome because of its narrow interpretation of public authority.
“The purpose of the fund is a distinctly public one. It is not meant to benefit any restricted category of people. What is the information that people require about the fund? Who donated how much? Who benefited, and how? What are the criteria for assistance? These questions need to be answered. The fund should be as transparent as possible. So, why this secrecy?” Nayak asked.
Activists highlight that the fund uses the national emblem and is administered by government machinery, making it accountable to people.
The transparency rights activist and navy veteran Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd) said, “The Prime Minister 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. All information about setting up the fund, the Prime Minister and other government functionaries’ appeals, and updates on contributions were made available through the Union government-run Press Information Bureau.”
Batra added: “If this is a public charitable trust, as claimed by the government, then it is akin to an NGO, and an NGO does not have this kind of official infrastructure and paraphernalia to collect funds and disburse money.”
 |
| Ajay Kumar, a 33-year-old patient from Sitamarhi district, Bihar, waits outside All Indian Institute of Medical Science,N Delhi, on June 25, 2020. | Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar |
“The government machinery was used in a big way to encourage contributions. Various ministries and departments were roped in. The Prime Minister himself addressed the Indian embassies and High Commissions and asked them to help attract contributions,” said Batra.
Questioning the fund’s foundations
Questioning the manner in which the fund was set up, activists ask why it was needed in the first place when the PMNRF already existed. (The PMNRF also gets voluntary contributions and is meant for disaster mitigation).
The response to an RTI application filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj revealed that the PM-CARES fund was not preceded by discussion or approval by the Cabinet. The RTI query was made to the Cabinet Secretariat on June 17, 2020. The reply on June 29, 2020, stated: “As per inputs received from [our] office, there was no agenda item in any Cabinet meeting specifically related to creation of PM-CARES fund.”
Activists point out that rules were also changed so that corporates could show donations to the fund as CSR initiatives. On the same day the fund was announced, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued a clarification that the fund was eligible for CSR activities under item number (viii) of Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013. Soon, there was a flurry of donations from private companies and PSUs.
The fund has received thousands of crores since its inception. The first contribution of Rs.2.25 lakh was made by the Prime Minister. As per the first receipt and payments account, the fund garnered a whopping Rs.3,076 crore by March 31, 2020. Several government departments and PSUs declared that their employees would donate one day’s salary to the fund. Funds from the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) for two years were also diverted to the PM-CARES fund. Indian embassies and High Commissions also publicised the fund and invited contributions. In the last audited report for the period ended March 31, 2023, the corpus of the fund amounted to over Rs.6,283 crore.
Critics say that the government has shared the bare minimum about the fund’s donations and disbursals aggregate figures of the money that has come in, the money spent, and the remaining balance are provided under the annual receipts and payment account details and demand that the full audited reports be made available in public domain.
“What is extremely concerning is that thousands of crores under CSR money has been contributed by PSUs. This is actually public money. So, the auditing should be done by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India instead of a private auditor,” said Nayak.
He added: “When an institution like a registered society or a trust puts out is audit report, it is not a one or two-page document. It is lengthy and has the auditor’s observations on what kinds of expenditure are completely alright and which are problematic, what could be changed, and advice for the future. We do not have any such information in the reports of the PM-CARES fund.”
According to the fund’s website, it has an independent auditor; the trustees of the fund, during their second meeting held on April 23, 2020, decided to appoint SARC & Associates, Chartered Accountants, New Delhi, for the purpose. There is no statutory period prescribed for the audit under the Income Tax Act, but it is stated that it will be conducted at the end of the financial year.
Batra highlighted that the latest account details on the fund’s website is for the period ended on March 31, 2023. “The audit report has not been updated since then. Also, the website states that the trustees of the fund decided in their second meeting on April 23, 2020, that SARC & Associates would be appointed for three years. But the auditor continues to be the same,” he said.
It is a striking irony that a fund that the public contributes to and which is meant for the public good remains shielded from public scrutiny.
.JPG)
.JPG)
