The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund, better known as the PM Cares Fund, was established by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this fund has quickly become a focal point of controversy, primarily due to allegations of opacity and a lack of transparency in its operations. This article delves into the heart of the “Pm Cares Fund Scan”, examining the concerns raised about its management and public accountability.
Launched on March 27th, shortly after India’s nationwide lockdown commenced, the PM Cares Fund was intended to bolster the nation’s capacity to fight the coronavirus and future crises. Prime Minister Modi himself urged Indian citizens to contribute generously, emphasizing that donations would play a crucial role in strengthening India’s healthcare infrastructure and overall resilience. The appeal resonated widely, resulting in an outpouring of donations from various sectors, including corporations, celebrities, and ordinary citizens. Within a week, reports indicated that the fund had amassed 65 billion rupees (approximately $858 million), and it has since surpassed 100 billion rupees.
Despite the rapid accumulation of funds, the PM Cares initiative was immediately met with skepticism and questions. Critics questioned the necessity of creating a new fund when the Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF) already existed for similar purposes since 1948. Sonia Gandhi, a prominent opposition leader, suggested that the newly collected funds should be directed to the PMNRF instead. Furthermore, the opposition Congress Party advocated for the fund to be specifically utilized for the welfare of migrant workers who were severely impacted by the sudden lockdown.
The timing of the PM Cares Fund’s establishment coincided with the onset of a significant humanitarian crisis in India. Millions of migrant laborers, among the most vulnerable populations, began desperate journeys from urban centers to their rural homes following the abrupt lockdown announcement. This mass exodus resulted in immense hardship, with migrants walking hundreds of kilometers in hunger and deprivation, and tragically, over a hundred lives were lost during this period. While expectations arose that the PM Cares Fund would be used to alleviate the suffering of these displaced populations, such assistance was not readily apparent. This lack of visible support led to sharp criticism, with one opposition Member of Parliament wryly renaming it the “PM Does Not Really Care” fund, highlighting the growing public scrutiny surrounding its purpose and utilization.
As weeks passed since the fund’s inception, the “pm cares fund scan” intensified, focusing on fundamental questions about its structure, management, and operational transparency. Key inquiries emerged concerning the total amount collected, the sources of donations, and the specific allocation of these funds. The official PM Cares website provided little to no answers to these pressing questions, and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), responsible for managing the fund, remained tight-lipped, declining to disclose any information. This lack of transparency fueled suspicions, leading opposition figures, independent activists, and journalists to question whether the government was deliberately concealing crucial details about the fund’s operations.
In response to this opacity, petitions were filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and in various courts, seeking to compel greater transparency and accountability. However, the PM Cares Fund has strategically avoided public scrutiny by asserting that it is not a “public authority.” This designation, if legally valid, would mean the fund is not under government control or significantly financed by public funds, thus exempting it from the purview of the RTI Act and government audits.
Kandukuri Sri Harsh, a law student and RTI applicant, challenged this assertion, stating, “It’s absurd to say the PM Cares is not a public authority. Millions of people did not donate to the fund thinking it’s a private trust. The money has been collected upon the strength of the prime minister’s name.” His RTI application, filed on April 1st, sought documentation regarding the fund’s constitution and operational mechanisms, initiating a formal “pm cares fund scan” through legal channels.
Mr. Kandukuri presented a compelling case arguing for the fund’s classification as a public authority, citing several key points:
- Government Control: The fund’s governance structure is heavily influenced by the government. The Prime Minister serves as chairperson, key cabinet ministers are trustees, and the remaining trustees are appointed by the Prime Minister.
- Official Government Domain: The PM Cares website is hosted on the “gov.in” domain, the official domain for Indian government entities.
- National Emblem Usage: The fund utilizes the national emblem of India, a symbol legally restricted to government bodies.
- Substantial Government Financing: Significant contributions to the fund have come directly or indirectly from government sources. BJP Members of Parliament were directed to donate substantial sums from their constituency funds (constitutionally established funds), public sector companies under government control made massive donations, and even mandatory salary contributions were extracted from soldiers, civil servants, and judges.
“Why is the government stonewalling?” Mr. Kandukuri questioned, underscoring the core issue driving the “pm cares fund scan”. “What can there be to hide in it?”
Activist and former journalist Saket Gokhale went further, describing the fund as a potential “blatant scam” and “the Achilles Heel of the government.” While BJP party officials have denied any impropriety, the persistent questions surrounding transparency continue to fuel public debate and legal challenges.
In response to mounting pressure, the Prime Minister’s Office eventually disclosed some details, stating that 20 billion rupees were allocated for ventilators, 10 billion rupees for migrant welfare, and 1 billion rupees for vaccine development. However, the allocation for migrant welfare was widely criticized as insufficient and belated. Furthermore, the ventilator procurement process itself became embroiled in controversy.
Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency in ventilator procurement, with allegations of no open tenders or competitive bidding processes. Adding to the controversy, a report emerged highlighting concerns from government-appointed panels regarding the reliability and functionality of 10,000 ventilators acquired through the PM Cares Fund. These issues further intensified the “pm cares fund scan”, extending it to the specifics of fund utilization and procurement practices.
Mr. Gokhale also raised questions about the selection of SARC & Associates as the fund’s auditor. This private firm had previously been appointed by Mr. Modi to audit the PMNRF in 2018 without a competitive bidding process. Gokhale pointed to the firm’s close ties to the ruling BJP, noting that its head, SK Gupta, is a vocal supporter of BJP policies, author of a book promoting Modi’s “Make in India” initiative, and an organizer of government-related events. Moreover, SARC & Associates itself donated 20 million rupees to the PM Cares Fund, further raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the impartiality of the audit process. This aspect of the “pm cares fund scan” focuses on the integrity of the financial oversight mechanisms.
BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli defended the PM Cares Fund, arguing that it was created to specifically address the pandemic, while the PMNRF is generally intended for natural calamities. He also argued against including political party representatives in public funds management, in response to comparisons with the PMNRF’s structure, which includes the Congress party president as a trustee. Mr. Kohli maintained that the fund was operating with transparency and that SARC & Associates was selected “purely on merit.” He dismissed the concerns as being raised by a small section of the opposition, questioning the urgency for public accountability during an ongoing pandemic.
Despite the BJP’s defenses, the call for greater transparency in the PM Cares Fund is not limited to the political opposition. Supreme Court lawyer Surender Singh Hooda, who filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, described the fund managers’ reluctance to disclose information as “unfathomable.” While Mr. Hooda had to temporarily withdraw his petition due to procedural requirements, he is preparing to refile it, underscoring the ongoing legal pressure for greater accountability.
Mr. Hooda emphasized the fundamental principle of transparency in a rule-of-law society: “It’s well known that sunlight is the best disinfectant and all the undesirable activities are done under the cover of darkness. Transparency is the bedrock of rule of law, and opaqueness smells of ulterior motive.” His words encapsulate the core demand driving the “pm cares fund scan” – a demand for openness and accountability in the management of a fund established in the Prime Minister’s name and supported by vast public contributions. The ongoing scrutiny reflects a broader concern about governance and the public’s right to information, especially concerning funds collected for national emergencies.
