The PM CARES Fund, created in 2020 for pandemic relief, is chaired by the Prime Minister but the government says it is a private charitable trust outside RTI
The Prime Minister’s Office has reportedly instructed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to block questions on the fund, citing its voluntary funding structure and legal status.
Social activist Anjali Bhardwaj criticised the lack of transparency, saying the fund functions like a government body and may be misused and hidden corporate influence.
The PM CARES Fund, launched in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, was created to mobilise resources for emergency relief and healthcare support. It was registered as a public charitable trust in New Delhi on March 27, 2020. The Prime Minister serves as its ex-officio chairperson, while the Home, Defence, and Finance Ministers are trustees. According to its latest publicly available receipts and payments report for 2022–23, the fund had a closing balance of ₹6,283.7 crore as of March 31, 2023.
Recently, the Prime Minister's Office reportedly issued instructions to the Lok Sabha Secretariat to prevent Members of Parliament from raising questions related to the PM CARES Fund. The government has maintained that, as a charitable trust funded entirely through voluntary public contributions, the fund does not fall under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as government departments.
The Centre has argued that PM CARES does not qualify as a “public authority” under the RTI Act because it does not receive money from the Consolidated Fund of India. In January 2023, the government told the Delhi High Court that the trust was neither created under the Constitution nor by any law passed by Parliament, and that it is neither owned nor controlled by the government. It also stated that the presence of public officials on its board is only for administrative convenience. On this basis, the fund was described as falling outside the definition of “State” under Article 12.
The legal status of the fund has also been examined by the Supreme Court of India. In August 2020, the court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the transfer of PM CARES funds to the National Disaster Response Fund, allowing the trust to function independently.
Amid this backdrop, social activist Anjali Bhardwaj in The Wire has raised serious concerns about the transparency and accountability of the fund. She has argued that despite being created in the name of public welfare, PM CARES is being kept beyond public scrutiny. According to her, instructions barring parliamentary questions further weaken democratic oversight.
Bhardwaj pointed out that the fund is chaired by the Prime Minister and managed by senior cabinet ministers in their official capacities, which, in her view, makes it function like a government-backed body. She also noted that Public Sector Units and private companies were encouraged to contribute, and that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds were permitted. She claimed that “more than ₹3,000 crore was donated by PSUs in the first three months” and that “around ₹13,000 crore was collected in the first three years.”
She questioned how a trust headed by top constitutional authorities could be treated as a private entity when citizens seek information under the RTI Act. According to her, this position prevents both the public and elected representatives from demanding accountability over how large sums of money are collected and spent.
Bhardwaj has also compared PM CARES with the now-scrapped electoral bonds scheme, alleging that both systems lack transparency and could enable “secret donations in exchange for favours.” She warned that the fund may become “Electoral Bonds 2.0,” raising concerns about possible quid pro quo and corporate influence. In this context, she linked her criticism to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, though the government has denied any wrongdoing.
Bhardwaj has stressed that the PM CARES Fund was built on public trust and public contributions and was meant to serve people in times of crisis. She argues that blocking parliamentary questions and denying RTI access weakens democratic accountability.
Her central demand is that if the fund is truly meant for public welfare, then citizens have the right to know how it is being managed. According to her, greater transparency is essential to ensure that no misuse or corruption takes place.
Suggested Reading: