Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance- applications, models, successes, limitations, and potential; citizens charters, transparency & accountability and institutional and other measures.
Introduction
- The publication of the audited financial statements of the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund for Financial Years 2023-24 and 2024-25 has revived core debates around public finance management, executive accountability, and transparency in quasi-governmental relief mechanisms.
About Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund
- Set up in 2020 as a public charitable trust chaired by the Prime Minister, the PM CARES Fund mobilizes voluntary donations for emergency relief, healthcare infrastructure, and crisis assistance.
Key Financial Highlights from the Audited Statements
According to disclosures published on the PM CARES Official Portal, the fund’s operational and financial metrics reflect a distinct accumulation-heavy pattern:
- Corpus Size:
- The closing balance rose to ₹8,452.07 crore by March 31, 2025, up 17.8% from ₹7,173.03 crore in FY 2023-24.
- Asset Allocation:
- A substantial ₹7,846.65 crore (nearly 93%) is parked in fixed deposits (FDs) across scheduled commercial banks, while ₹605.41 crore remains in savings accounts.
- Income Streams:
- The fund earned ₹469.38 crore in interest on FDs alone, nearly matching its fresh domestic donations of ₹479.05 crore. Foreign donations stood at ₹92.83 lakh. Additionally, ₹324.66 crore was received as unspent refunds from implementing agencies.
- Expenditure Levels:
- Total disbursement during FY 2024-25 was ₹87.85 lakh (around 0.01% of the corpus), down from ₹15.38 crore in FY 2023-24. Disbursements were directed towards the PM CARES for Children scheme.
Core Concerns and Criticism
- Capital Accumulation vs. Active Relief:
- With massive reserves earning over ₹469 crore in annual interest, questions arise over the opportunity cost of holding funds instead of deploying them for disaster mitigation, regional flood relief, or public health upgrades.
- Lack of Legislative Oversight:
- The fund is not financed from the Consolidated Fund of India, leading the PMO to state that parliamentary questions on the fund are inadmissible. This limits checks and balances.
- Exemption from RTI Act:
- The trust is held to be outside the definition of a “Public Authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which restricts citizens’ ability to seek itemized data on donors and internal project approvals.
- Non-CAG External Audit:
- While audited by independent private Chartered Accountants, it remains outside the constitutional purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) under Article 148-151.
- Federal Asymmetry in CSR Policy:
- Under Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013, contributions to PM CARES qualify as CSR spending, while donations to Chief Minister’s Relief Funds (CMRFs) and State Disaster Relief Funds (SDRFs) generally do not.
The Government’s Rationale
- Strategic Emergency Buffer:
- Proponents argue that a dedicated, liquid national corpus is vital to respond quickly to unprecedented, large-scale black swan events (such as pandemic waves or mega-disasters) without procedural delays.
- Demonstrated Past Impact:
- During the peak COVID-19 crisis, the fund allocated over ₹4,000 crore within its first two years toward 50,000 “Made in India” ventilators, setting up makeshift COVID hospitals, supporting indigenous vaccine development (e.g., Covaxin trials), and installing PSA Oxygen plants nationwide.
- Zero Burden on the Public Exchequer:
- PM CARES runs purely on voluntary donations from individuals and corporates, without drawing money from the taxpayer-funded budget.
- Public Domain Transparency:
- Audited balance sheets and broad expenditure heads are published online for public review, balancing institutional flexibility with public disclosure.
- Judicial Endorsement:
- The Supreme Court of India (CPIL v. Union of India, 2020) upheld the fund’s validity, ruling that it operates as a distinct charitable trust that does not conflict with the statutory National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF).
Multi-Dimensional Governance Analysis
- Constitutional & Legal Dimension:
- The debate highlights the tension between private trust law and constitutional morality. When a fund uses the State Emblem, the Prime Minister’s designation, and government digital infrastructure, citizens naturally expect standard public accountability norms.
- Fiscal Federalism:
- Directing national CSR contributions primarily toward a central trust can inadvertently dry up corporate relief donations to state-level disaster funds.
- Ethical Dimension (Nolan Principles):
- Public offices rely heavily on public trust. Upholding Openness, Accountability, and Objectivity requires clear explanations of why large sums are refunded or held idle in bank deposits.
- Institutional Architecture:
- The coexistence of multiple funds (PM CARES, PMNRF, and the statutory NDRF under the Disaster Management Act, 2005) creates operational overlap and confusion regarding long-term disaster financing.
Way Forward
- Proactive RTI Disclosures:
- The trust should voluntarily adopt Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to publish project evaluations, state-wise grants, and procurement methods.
- Third-Party Social and Performance Audits:
- Supplement private financial audits with comprehensive impact assessments to evaluate on-ground delivery for initiatives like the PM CARES for Children scheme.
- Level Playing Field for CSR:
- Extend eligible CSR status under the Companies Act to State Disaster Management Authorities and CMRFs to strengthen cooperative federalism.
- Annual Parliamentary Tabling:
- Place an annual summary report of fund activities and disbursements before Parliament for informational review, without diluting the trust’s operational speed.
Conclusion
- Balancing operational agility with institutional accountability through proactive disclosures, social audits, and parliamentary tabling will ensure public trust while preserving the fund’s capacity for rapid national emergency response.
