By Nanditha Subhadra
In a democracy like India, where public trust forms the bedrock of governance, the trustees of the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund) has a substantial responsibility to address widespread suspicions regarding its structure and operations. Established in March 2020 amid the COVID-19 crisis, the fund is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes senior ministers as trustees, a composition that has fuelled perceptions of it being closely tied to government functions. With substantial donations from public sector undertakings (PSUs) and major corporations, critics have voiced concerns that the fund’s opacity could mask potential quid pro quo arrangements, drawing parallels to the now-defunct electoral bonds scheme. To dispel these doubts and reinforce accountability, there is a pressing need for the trustees—holding high public offices—to proactively disclose details on funding sources and expenditures, thereby upholding the principles of transparency that citizens expect from institutions handling public contributions.
The PM CARES Fund was created as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, with the aim of providing relief during emergencies such as pandemics and natural disasters. Unlike statutory funds like the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF), it receives no budgetary support from the government, relying instead on voluntary donations. However, its nomenclature, prominently featuring “Prime Minister’s,” combined with the ex-officio roles of the Prime Minister as chairperson and the Ministers of Defence, Home Affairs, and Finance as trustees, has led to public confusion about its independence. This setup, while intended to facilitate swift decision-making, has inadvertently deepened suspicions that the fund operates in a grey area between public purpose and limited oversight. Observers argue that such ambiguity could erode confidence, especially when the fund has been promoted through official channels, potentially giving the impression of governmental ownership.
Funding for PM CARES has been robust, with reports indicating collections surpassing ₹13,000 crore in its early years, including significant contributions from PSUs and private entities. PSUs, which are accountable to taxpayers, have been major donors; for instance, over 100 PSUs contributed nearly ₹155 crore from staff salaries, and more than ₹2,400 crore from CSR funds in the initial phases. Entities like Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), NTPC, and Indian Oil Corporation featured prominently among top contributors, channelling over ₹2,900 crore between 2019-20 and 2021-22. Corporate giants, including Reliance Industries (₹500 crore), Tata Group (₹500 crore), and Aditya Birla Group (₹400 crore), have also donated substantially. These inflows are incentivized by tax exemptions under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and CSR eligibility under the Companies Act, 2013. While the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has confirmed such contributions align with guidelines, the scale and sources—particularly from PSUs—underscore the public’s legitimate interest in understanding how these resources are mobilized and allocated.
Transparency remains a core challenge for the fund. It is not classified as a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, due to its lack of budgetary funding, leading to repeated denials of RTI requests for donor lists and detailed expenditures. The PMO has cited privacy protections under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, even for juristic entities, as affirmed in recent Delhi High Court observations in January 2026. Additionally, a PMO directive in February 2026 informed the Lok Sabha Secretariat that questions on PM CARES are inadmissible in Parliament, as the fund’s corpus comprises voluntary contributions outside the Consolidated Fund of India. While independent audits occur and partial summaries are released on the official website, the absence of comprehensive disclosures—such as full donor identities or granular spending—has prompted debates on whether this suffices for a fund of such magnitude. Critics highlight missing audit reports since 2022, further amplifying calls for greater openness.
These concerns are amplified by comparisons to the electoral bonds scheme, struck down by the Supreme Court in 2024 for infringing on informational rights and enabling potential quid pro quo. Activists argue that PM CARES’s donor anonymity similarly risks “secret donations in exchange for favors,” especially given corporate and PSU inflows amid regulatory interactions. For example, the scheme’s opacity was linked to influence over policymaking, with the court noting that unlimited corporate funding could distort democracy. In PM CARES’s context, the involvement of top officials as trustees raises similar apprehensions, though unsubstantiated, that large contributions might correlate with governmental benefits. Such parallels, voiced by transparency advocates, suggest the fund could be perceived as “Electoral Bonds 2.0,” potentially vulnerable to misuse like extortion or regulatory inaction.
At the heart of this discourse lies the moral and social responsibility of elected leaders in a democracy. The Prime Minister and ministers, serving as trustees in their official capacities, embody public trust. When a fund solicits nationwide donations during crises, it creates an implicit obligation for accountability to donors and citizens alike. Persistent opacity fosters assumptions that “something is amiss,” eroding faith in institutions. Voluntary measures, such as aggregated donor disclosures or detailed expenditure reports, could address these without legal mandates, aligning with democratic ideals where informed citizenry prevents undue influence.
Ultimately, enhancing transparency in PM CARES would not only clear suspicions but also set a precedent for accountable governance. By prioritizing disclosure, the trustees can reaffirm the fund’s role as a tool for public good, free from doubts of camouflaged mechanisms, and strengthen the democratic fabric that binds citizens and their leaders.
