Activists have raised serious transparency concerns after it emerged that the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund has not made public any audited financial statements for the past three fiscal years, despite being a public charitable trust established in March 2020 amid the COVID-19 crisis to support relief efforts during public health emergencies and other disasters. The last publicly available audited financial statements, for fiscal year 2022-23, showed a closing balance of ₹6,283.68 crore as of March 31, 2023. Audited statements for 2019-20 through 2022-23 remain available on the PM CARES website, but nothing has been published since.
This is a matter of considerable constitutional and governance significance because it sits at the intersection of executive accountability, the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the broader question of how public trusts chaired by constitutional functionaries should be held accountable to citizens. Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, has called the absence of post-2022-23 audit statements “extremely concerning,” while noting that although the fund was presented as a government initiative — with government employees even contributing from their salaries — the government has maintained in RTI proceedings that the Trust is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, thereby placing PM CARES outside the ambit of RTI scrutiny, parliamentary oversight, and Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit.
💡 Get AI-powered exam prep on your phone!
For UPSC and SSC aspirants, this topic offers a rich case study spanning constitutional law, the RTI Act’s definitional boundaries, public trust governance, and the broader debate on transparency versus discretionary executive action during emergencies — themes that recur across GS-II Polity and Governance papers.
Background and Context
PM CARES was established on March 27, 2020, days after India’s first COVID-19 lockdown, as a public charitable trust chaired by the Prime Minister and including the Defence, Home, and Finance Ministers as ex-officio trustees. It was designed to receive voluntary contributions for handling emergencies like the pandemic, positioned as distinct from the pre-existing Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF), which is subject to different disclosure norms.
Five Important Key Points
- PM CARES Fund’s last publicly available audited financial statements are for fiscal year 2022-23, showing an opening balance of ₹5,415.65 crore, voluntary contributions of ₹909.64 crore, total receipts of ₹6,723.07 crore, total payments of ₹439.38 crore, and a closing balance of ₹6,283.68 crore.
- The Central government has consistently maintained in RTI proceedings that PM CARES is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, despite being chaired by the Prime Minister and receiving contributions from government employees’ salaries.
- Former Central Information Commissioner and RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi has argued that PM CARES legally falls within the ambit of the RTI Act, asserting that the trustees, being Union Ministers, are “public servants” who should be accountable.
- PM CARES remains outside the jurisdiction of the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), unlike government-run funds subject to standard public financial accountability mechanisms.
- The fund was established as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, distinguishing it structurally from the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF), a distinction the government has used to justify PM CARES’ exemption from RTI applicability.
Constitutional and Legal Framework — The RTI Act’s “Public Authority” Test
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, defines “public authority” broadly to include any authority or body established by the Constitution, by any law made by Parliament or state legislature, by notification or order of the appropriate government, and — crucially — any “non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government.” The government’s position that PM CARES falls outside this definition, despite its Prime Ministerial chairmanship and demonstrable public character, has been legally contested repeatedly, including in the Delhi High Court, though final judicial resolution on the fund’s RTI status remains a live legal question.
Governance Concerns — Executive Accountability and Trust Structures
The core governance concern is structural: by establishing PM CARES as a trust rather than routing pandemic-relief funds through the existing PMNRF or a government scheme subject to CAG audit and parliamentary budgetary scrutiny under Articles 266 and 267 of the Constitution (dealing with the Consolidated Fund of India), the government has created a mechanism for receiving and disbursing public-facing charitable contributions that escapes the standard constitutional accountability architecture applicable to government expenditure. This raises important separation-of-powers and accountability questions, since the fund handles resources contributed partly in response to what was widely perceived as a government-endorsed national relief effort, blurring the line between private charitable activity and quasi-governmental fund management.
Economic and Fiscal Transparency Implications
With a closing balance exceeding ₹6,283 crore as of the last disclosed statement, the fund’s continued non-disclosure of subsequent years’ financials creates a significant transparency gap regarding how public-spirited contributions — now worth potentially far more given continued interest and contributions — are being utilised. In a democracy governed by principles of fiscal transparency, this gap undermines citizens’ ability to verify whether funds contributed during a national crisis are being deployed as originally intended.
Comparative Perspective — Global Disaster Relief Fund Transparency Norms
Internationally, disaster relief and pandemic funds established by governments — such as various national COVID-19 relief funds in countries like the UK and Australia — have typically remained subject to national audit institutions and parliamentary oversight, given their public character and government sponsorship. India’s approach of structuring PM CARES as a trust outside standard audit frameworks represents a departure from comparable international practice, raising India’s transparency benchmarking concerns in global governance indices.
Way Forward
The government should voluntarily publish annual audited financial statements for PM CARES for all pending years, restoring the transparency precedent set in the fund’s first three years of operation. Parliament could consider legislative clarification of the RTI Act’s “public authority” definition to explicitly address trusts chaired by constitutional functionaries and substantially reliant on public sector contributions, closing the interpretive ambiguity that has enabled PM CARES’ current exemption. Additionally, an independent oversight mechanism, potentially involving CAG audit on a voluntary consent basis, could restore public confidence without requiring contentious legal battles over RTI applicability.
Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations
For UPSC GS-II (Polity and Governance), this topic directly relates to “Right to Information,” “Transparency and accountability,” and “Government policies and interventions.” It also connects to Ethics (GS-IV) discussions on public accountability and probity in governance. For SSC exams, static facts include the RTI Act’s enactment year (2005), PM CARES’ establishment date (March 27, 2020), and Section 2(h)’s definition of public authority. Key terms: public authority, Consolidated Fund of India, CAG audit, and PMNRF.