PM CARES and the unanswered questions of accountability

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan 

The COVID-19 pandemic presented India with one of the gravest crises in its modern history. As healthcare systems struggled under unprecedented pressure and millions faced economic and social hardship, the Government of India announced the creation of the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund in March 2020. Conceived as a mechanism to mobilize resources quickly during emergencies, the fund received an overwhelming response from citizens, corporations, celebrities, public sector enterprises and institutions across the country.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and members of the Union Cabinet appealed to the public to contribute generously. Bollywood personalities, corporate houses, public sector undertakings (PSUs), and ordinary citizens responded in large numbers. The Ministry of Defence facilitated contributions from personnel of the Army, Navy, Air Force and civilian employees, with reports indicating that nearly ₹500 crore was collected through one day's salary donations. In a moment of national crisis, PM CARES was projected as a symbol of collective solidarity and humanitarian support.

Yet, what began as a widely welcomed initiative soon became the subject of intense public debate. Questions emerged regarding its legal status, accountability mechanisms, transparency standards and institutional oversight. While the government has consistently maintained that PM CARES is an independent public charitable trust designed to respond swiftly during emergencies, critics argue that its structure raises important concerns about governance and public accountability.

PM CARES is chaired by the Prime Minister, while the Ministers of Defence, Home Affairs and Finance serve as ex-officio trustees. The fund receives voluntary contributions from individuals, corporations, public sector undertakings, non-resident Indians and foreign donors. Donations enjoy several incentives, including 100 percent tax exemption, eligibility as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure and exemptions under certain provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. These benefits contributed significantly to the rapid accumulation of funds during the pandemic.

The controversy surrounding PM CARES stems largely from its unique institutional position. Although it bears the Prime Minister's name, uses official symbolism and was promoted through government channels, the government has maintained that it is not a government fund but an independent charitable trust. This distinction became particularly significant when information about the fund was sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Prime Minister's Office took the position that PM CARES does not qualify as a "public authority" under the RTI Act and is therefore not obligated to disclose information through that mechanism.

For critics, this has created a troubling contradiction. They argue that while the fund derives legitimacy from its close association with the highest offices of government, it remains insulated from the transparency requirements that apply to public institutions. In their view, a fund chaired by constitutional office holders and promoted through official channels should be subject to greater public scrutiny, especially when it receives large-scale contributions from public sector entities.

Another recurring criticism concerns auditing and oversight. Unlike government funds that are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), PM CARES is audited by private auditors appointed by its trustees. Critics contend that independent CAG scrutiny would enhance public confidence and strengthen accountability, particularly given the substantial sums involved. Questions have also been raised regarding the extent of disclosure relating to donor identities, expenditure details and decision-making processes. Although audited reports and expenditure summaries have been published, critics argue that the disclosures remain limited and do not meet the standards expected of institutions closely associated with the government.

The Supreme Court entered the debate in 2020 when petitions sought the transfer of PM CARES funds to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and questioned the fund's legal status. The Court dismissed these petitions, holding that PM CARES is a public charitable trust funded through voluntary contributions rather than budgetary allocations from the government. The judgment affirmed its separate legal identity and rejected demands for transferring its funds. However, while the ruling settled the legal question, it did not end the broader public debate about transparency and accountability.

According to publicly available reports, PM CARES had received approximately ₹13,605 crore in donations and accrued interest by March 2023. Funds were reportedly utilized for a range of pandemic-related initiatives, including the installation of medical oxygen generation plants, procurement of ventilators and strengthening emergency healthcare infrastructure. These expenditures have been cited by supporters as evidence that the fund played a significant role in addressing urgent healthcare needs during the pandemic.

At the same time, political criticism has remained persistent. Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi has argued that a significant share of contributions came from government-controlled enterprises such as ONGC, NTPC, Power Grid Corporation, Indian Oil Corporation and Power Finance Corporation. According to this line of criticism, if public sector entities contribute extensively to the fund, then stronger public accountability mechanisms should logically apply. Critics have also questioned whether a similarly structured fund established by a state government would have received comparable exemptions from scrutiny.

Supporters of PM CARES reject these criticisms. They argue that the fund's independent structure enabled rapid mobilization and deployment of resources during an unprecedented emergency, avoiding the delays often associated with bureaucratic procedures. In their view, the effectiveness of the fund should be judged by the relief it provided rather than by assumptions of impropriety.

Nevertheless, the debate continues because PM CARES occupies a unique space between public authority and private trust. Critics point to its use of official government symbolism, a government domain name, the national emblem and the Prime Minister's official designation. They argue that these features create an unmistakably public character. The government, however, maintains that legal status—not public perception—determines accountability obligations, and that PM CARES remains an independent charitable entity.

The controversy surrounding PM CARES ultimately raises larger questions about governance in a democracy. Emergency situations undoubtedly require flexibility and speed, but they also demand public trust. That trust is strengthened when institutions embrace transparency rather than merely comply with minimum legal requirements. The debate, therefore, is not only about how funds were collected or spent during a crisis; it is also about the standards of accountability that citizens can reasonably expect from institutions closely linked to public authority.

PM CARES succeeded in mobilizing substantial resources during one of India's most challenging periods. Yet questions concerning transparency, auditing standards and public oversight continue to linger. Whether viewed as an effective emergency relief mechanism or as an institution that should be subjected to greater scrutiny, PM CARES remains one of the most debated legacies of the pandemic era. The discussion is likely to continue until greater clarity and disclosure satisfy those who believe that public trust is best preserved through maximum transparency rather than minimum legal obligation.

---

Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a group of digital activists working to combat disinformation on social media