The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has informed the Lok Sabha Secretariat that parliamentary questions relating to PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF), and the National Defence Fund (NDF) are not admissible under the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha. The development raises important constitutional and accountability questions about the nature of these funds, their legal status, and Parliament’s oversight powers.
What Are the Three Funds?
The most recent and widely debated among them is the PM CARES Fund, set up on March 27, 2020, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was established as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, to deal with emergency or distress situations. According to its published accounts for 2022–23, the fund had a closing balance of over ₹6,283 crore as of March 2023.
The other two funds predate PM CARES:
- Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF): Established in 1948 to assist displaced persons after Partition, it now provides relief in natural disasters, major accidents, and riots.
- National Defence Fund (NDF): Used for the welfare of members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. It is administered by an Executive Committee headed by the Prime Minister.
All three funds are chaired or administered under the aegis of the Prime Minister, but they are constituted through voluntary public contributions rather than parliamentary appropriation.
Why Are Questions Being Declared Inadmissible?
The PMO cited Rule 41(2)(viii) and Rule 41(2)(xvii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha to argue that questions on these funds are not permissible.
Under these provisions:
- Rule 41(2)(viii) disallows questions relating to matters not primarily the concern of the Government of India.
- Rule 41(2)(xvii) bars questions concerning bodies or persons not primarily responsible to the Government of India.
The reasoning reportedly offered by the PMO is that these funds are composed entirely of voluntary public donations and not allocations from the Consolidated Fund of India. Hence, they are not considered part of government expenditure subject to routine parliamentary scrutiny.
Government’s Legal Position in Courts
The Centre has consistently maintained in courts that PM CARES Fund is a public charitable trust and not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. In proceedings before the Delhi High Court, the government argued that:
- The trust is not created by the Constitution or any law made by Parliament.
- It is neither owned nor controlled by the government.
- The inclusion of public office holders as trustees is for administrative convenience.
- It does not qualify as a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
This legal position forms the basis of the argument that Parliament’s question mechanism does not apply to these funds.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
In August 2020, the Supreme Court of India declined to direct the transfer of PM CARES funds to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF). The Court observed that PM CARES and NDRF are distinct entities with different objectives.
The Court also noted that while the NDRF is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), PM CARES, being a public charitable trust, does not fall under that framework. This judicial position reinforced the distinction between statutory disaster funds and voluntary trust-based funds.
Parliamentary Accountability and Constitutional Debate
The current controversy highlights a broader constitutional question: To what extent can entities closely associated with high constitutional offices remain outside parliamentary scrutiny?
Parliament’s power to ask questions is a central feature of executive accountability in India’s parliamentary democracy. The issue, therefore, is not merely procedural but institutional.
Key concerns include:
- Whether functional control or public association with government offices should trigger accountability.
- Whether voluntary funds chaired by public office holders blur the line between state and private entities.
- How transparency norms apply when public trust and large donations are involved.
The distinction between funds financed through the Consolidated Fund of India and those financed through voluntary contributions lies at the heart of this debate.
Wider Implications for Democratic Oversight
The episode underscores tensions between legal form and political substance. Even if technically outside the Consolidated Fund, funds associated with the Prime Minister’s Office operate within the public sphere and command significant public trust.
The matter raises questions about:
- The scope of legislative oversight.
- The balance between executive discretion and transparency.
- The evolving nature of quasi-governmental institutions.
As India’s governance structures become more hybrid — combining statutory, executive, and trust-based models — clarity on accountability frameworks becomes increasingly important.
What to Note for Prelims?
- Article 12 of the Constitution – definition of “State”.
- Difference between Consolidated Fund of India and public charitable trusts.
- Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
- Distinction between PM CARES Fund and NDRF.
What to Note for Mains?
- Examine the scope of parliamentary oversight over executive-associated trusts.
- Discuss whether functional control should determine accountability rather than formal legal status.
- Analyse the balance between transparency and executive flexibility in emergency funds.
- Evaluate the implications for democratic accountability in a parliamentary system.