PM CARES Fund and Parliamentary Scrutiny: Latest Developments

Context

Recently, the Prime Minister’s Office informed the Lok Sabha Secretariat that questions relating to PM CARES, PMNRF, and the National Defence Fund are not admissible under Lok Sabha rules.

The PMO cited specific procedural rules to justify that these funds are based on voluntary public contributions and are not part of the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, they fall outside routine parliamentary scrutiny.

Q1. Why has the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) stated that questions on PM CARES, PMNRF and NDF are not admissible in the Lok Sabha?

1. The PMO stated that these funds are financed entirely through voluntary public contributions and not through government budgetary allocations.
2. Since they do not receive money from the Consolidated Fund of India, they are not treated as government funds in the strict constitutional sense.
3. Under Lok Sabha rules, questions must relate to matters that are primarily the concern of the Government of India.
4. The PMO argued that these funds operate as independent trusts or executive funds, not as statutory bodies created by Parliament.
5. Because they are not statutory authorities, they are not directly accountable to Parliament in the same way as ministries.
6. The Rules of Procedure bar questions on bodies not primarily responsible to the Government of India.
7. Therefore, the PMO directed that such questions are inadmissible during Question Hour or discussions.
8. This interpretation aligns with the government’s previous position before courts regarding the independent legal status of these funds.

Q2. What is the legal status of the PM CARES Fund and how does it differ from statutory funds?

1. PM CARES is registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908.
2. It was established in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic to address emergency and distress situations.
3. It is not created under the Constitution of India.
4. It is also not established by any Act of Parliament or state legislature.
5. Statutory funds, by contrast, are created through legislation and are governed by specific legal provisions.
6. Statutory funds are typically subject to parliamentary oversight and audit mechanisms.
7. PM CARES operates through a trust structure, administered by trustees holding public office.
8. This trust-based model differentiates it from funds like the National Disaster Response Fund, which is governed by statutory provisions.

Q3. How do Rule 41(2)(viii) and Rule 41(2)(xvii) of Lok Sabha procedure restrict parliamentary questions?

1. Rule 41(2)(viii) bars questions that do not relate primarily to the concern of the Government of India.
2. Rule 41(2)(xvii) prohibits questions about matters under the control of bodies not primarily responsible to the Government.
3. The PMO interpreted these provisions to mean that trust-based funds fall outside direct governmental responsibility.
4. Since these funds are not part of government expenditure, they are considered outside routine legislative oversight.
5. The rules aim to prevent Parliament from debating matters not legally under government control.
6. Therefore, even though the Prime Minister administers these funds, they are not treated as governmental departments.
7. This procedural bar effectively removes them from Question Hour discussions.
8. The interpretation highlights the distinction between political accountability and procedural admissibility.

Q4. What is the difference between the PM CARES Fund and the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF)?

1. The NDRF is a statutory fund created under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
2. It receives budgetary allocations from the Consolidated Fund of India.
3. The NDRF is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
4. PM CARES is a public charitable trust funded by voluntary donations.
5. PM CARES does not receive allocations from the Consolidated Fund.
6. The Supreme Court in 2020 held that both funds have distinct objectives and governance structures.
7. The Court refused to order the transfer of PM CARES funds into NDRF.
8. Thus, the key difference lies in statutory backing and audit requirements.

Q5. Why is PM CARES not subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)?

1. The CAG audits funds that are part of government accounts under Articles 148–151 of the Constitution.
2. Since PM CARES is not part of the Consolidated Fund of India, it does not automatically fall under CAG jurisdiction.
3. It is treated as a public charitable trust rather than a government department.
4. The Supreme Court clarified that statutory audit provisions applicable to NDRF do not apply to PM CARES.
5. The trust appoints its own independent auditors.
6. Therefore, there is no constitutional mandate for CAG audit.
7. This distinction is based on the legal character of the fund.
8. However, critics argue that scale and public nature justify greater scrutiny.

Q6. What constitutional and accountability issues arise in debates around PM CARES?

1. Article 266 governs the Consolidated Fund of India and parliamentary control over government finances.
2. Funds outside this framework face limited legislative scrutiny.
3. Article 12 defines “State” for constitutional accountability purposes.
4. If PM CARES is not “State,” constitutional remedies under fundamental rights may be restricted.
5. RTI applicability depends on whether an entity is a public authority.
6. The government argues that PM CARES is not covered under RTI.
7. Critics raise concerns about transparency in high-value public funds.
8. The debate centres on balancing flexibility in emergency response with democratic accountability.

Q7. How do PM CARES, PMNRF and NDF operate outside the Consolidated Fund of India?

1. These funds are financed through voluntary donations from individuals and institutions.
2. They do not receive direct budgetary support from Parliament.
3. They are not reflected as government expenditure in the Union Budget.
4. Therefore, they are not subject to annual parliamentary approval.
5. Article 266 procedures do not apply to them.
6. This means legislative voting is not required for their functioning.
7. Administration is handled through executive structures.
8. This operational independence limits formal parliamentary control.

Q8. What are the implications of classifying PM CARES as not being “State” under Article 12?

1. Article 12 defines which entities are considered “State” for enforcing fundamental rights.
2. If PM CARES is not State, constitutional writs may not directly apply.
3. Courts may have limited jurisdiction in reviewing internal decisions.
4. Transparency obligations may be reduced.
5. Administrative law principles may not automatically bind the trust.
6. It reinforces the argument of independence from government control.
7. However, public trust concerns remain because trustees hold constitutional office.
8. The classification shapes the extent of judicial review and accountability.

Q9. Does exclusion from RTI and parliamentary questions affect transparency in public charitable trusts?

1. RTI ensures public access to information from public authorities.
2. Exclusion limits direct citizen access to detailed operational records.
3. Parliamentary questions are a tool for executive accountability.
4. Their inadmissibility reduces legislative oversight.
5. However, the trust publishes annual reports and financial statements.
6. Supporters argue voluntary funds require operational flexibility.
7. Critics argue that large public donations justify higher transparency standards.
8. The issue reflects evolving debates on governance in quasi-public institutions.

Conclusion

The PMO’s directive reinforces the legal position that PM CARES, PMNRF and NDF are independent trust-based entities funded by voluntary contributions and not government funds under parliamentary control.

However, the debate continues on constitutional accountability, transparency, and democratic oversight, especially when such funds are administered by high public offices and operate at a national scale.