RTI and PM CARES Fund: Is It a Public Authority and What Courts Have Said

When the COVID-19 pandemic reached India in March 2020, the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund — PM CARES — was established within days. Within weeks, it had received thousands of crores of rupees in donations from corporations, public sector undertakings, private individuals, and foreign entities. It became one of the most prominent financial instruments of the government's pandemic response.

It also became one of the most contested from a transparency standpoint. Citizens and transparency advocates filed RTI applications seeking information about the fund. Petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India seeking to have it declared a "public authority" under the RTI Act, 2005, which would make it legally obligated to respond to RTI applications and proactively disclose information under Section 4. The government's position was consistent: PM CARES is a public charitable trust, not a public authority, and therefore outside the RTI Act's reach.

This post explains what PM CARES is, why the question of its legal status under the RTI Act is genuinely contested, what courts have generally held, what RTI applications can and cannot access about COVID relief expenditure, and what alternative accountability mechanisms exist.

What Is the PM CARES Fund?

PM CARES — the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund — was set up on 27 March 2020 as a public charitable trust. It was not established by any statute of Parliament or any state legislature. It was not created by any notification or executive order under a specific law. Its governing document is a trust deed.

The fund's trustees are holding public offices ex officio: the Prime Minister serves as the ex officio Chairman; the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Minister of Finance serve as ex officio Trustees. This means that the trustees of PM CARES are not named individuals but the holders of these offices — whoever occupies the position of Prime Minister or Finance Minister at a given point in time automatically becomes a trustee.

The fund accepts donations from individuals, corporations, and foreign entities. Contributions to PM CARES are eligible for 100% tax deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Donations by companies were treated as eligible for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) credit under the Companies Act. The government has stated consistently that no money from the Consolidated Fund of India — the government's primary treasury — was deposited into PM CARES.

PM CARES publishes annual audited accounts on its official website. The audit is conducted by a private chartered accountant firm, not by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

The RTI Act Question: What Is a "Public Authority"?

To understand why the PM CARES question is legally significant, you need to understand how the RTI Act defines "public authority." Section 2(h) provides:

"public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted — (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any — (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

There are, in essence, two routes to being a public authority. The first is being constituted or established in one of the four ways listed — by the Constitution, by Parliament, by a state legislature, or by a government notification or order. The second is being a body owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government, or a non-government organisation substantially financed — directly or indirectly — by government funds.

PM CARES was not established by Parliament, by a state legislature, or by any constitutional provision. The core debate has therefore centred on whether it qualifies as a body "substantially financed" or "substantially controlled" by the government under the tail of Section 2(h).

The Two Sides of the Argument

The legal debate over PM CARES's status as a public authority is a genuine one, with substantive arguments on both sides. A fair treatment requires presenting both.

Arguments That PM CARES Is a Public Authority

Those who argue that PM CARES falls within the RTI Act's definition of a public authority point to several features of the fund's structure and operation.

The trustees are the government. The Chairman and all Trustees of PM CARES are sitting central government ministers acting in their official capacity. The fund is not merely associated with the government — its board of management is constituted entirely of persons who hold the highest executive offices in India. This degree of structural control by government functionaries, acting ex officio rather than in a personal capacity, goes significantly beyond the kind of association between government and a private body that the law would typically treat as inconsequential.

Use of government infrastructure and resources. Petitioners and commentators have noted that the fund was initially communicated through government channels — the Prime Minister's Office was involved in public messaging around PM CARES, official government letterheads and communications were used in its early promotion, and government employees in several departments were solicited for contributions through official mechanisms. The argument is that a fund that was effectively launched, promoted, and administered using government infrastructure is not straightforwardly a private entity.

Substantial financing by public sector undertakings. A significant portion of early PM CARES donations came from Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) — government-owned companies that are themselves public authorities. If the fund was substantially financed by entities that are organs of the state, the question arises whether this financing was indirectly from government funds. Government-owned companies drawing on their revenues — which ultimately derive from public assets — to donate to a fund is a different proposition from a private individual or private corporation making the same donation.

Section 2(h)'s spirit. The argument from constitutional purpose is that the RTI Act was designed to ensure accountability wherever public functions are being carried out with resources connected to the state. A fund established by the Prime Minister, controlled by ministers, receiving donations from state-owned companies, and disbursing money for COVID pandemic relief — an archetypal public purpose — should be subject to the same transparency demands as a government department, whatever its formal legal structure.

Arguments That PM CARES Is Not a Public Authority

The government's consistent position — and the position that courts have generally accepted — is that PM CARES is not a public authority under the RTI Act for the following reasons.

It was not established by statute, notification, or government order. Section 2(h)'s first four categories — the bodies established under the Constitution, by Parliament, by a state legislature, or by a government notification — do not cover PM CARES. It was established by a trust deed under the general law governing charitable trusts, specifically the Registration Act. This is the same legal form used by countless private charitable organisations in India. The method of establishment matters under Section 2(h), and PM CARES does not fit the statutory categories.

No Consolidated Fund money was deposited. The government's central factual claim is that PM CARES was funded exclusively by voluntary donations from individuals, corporations, and other non-government sources, and that no appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of India was made to PM CARES. The "substantially financed by government funds" prong of Section 2(h) cannot be satisfied, on this argument, if there were no government funds to begin with. The donors — including PSUs — were making voluntary contributions, not channelling government appropriations.

The trustees act as trustees, not as government. The fact that the trustees are ministers does not, on this argument, convert PM CARES into a government body. Ministers routinely serve as trustees, patrons, or members of private charitable institutions in India without converting those institutions into public authorities. The trustees' government positions are incidental to their role as trustees; they act under the trust deed, not under their executive authority.

Distinction from PMNRF. The government has consistently drawn a distinction between PM CARES and the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF), which is treated as a public authority and responds to RTI applications. The distinction the government draws is that PMNRF has historically received transfers from government sources and operates under PMO oversight in a manner different from PM CARES. Whether this distinction is legally principled or practically meaningful is itself debated — but it shows that the government does not deny the RTI Act's applicability to all Prime Ministerial funds, only to this specific one.

Charitable trust law. PM CARES, as a registered public charitable trust, is governed by the law applicable to charitable trusts. Like any private charitable trust, it is accountable to the courts exercising charity jurisdiction and to relevant trust law provisions — not to the transparency architecture of the RTI Act, which was designed for public bodies.

What Courts Have Generally Held

Petitions seeking to have PM CARES declared a public authority under the RTI Act were filed before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India. These petitions argued, among other things, that PM CARES's structural features — particularly the role of the Prime Minister and senior ministers as ex officio trustees — brought it within Section 2(h).

Courts have generally not accepted the argument that PM CARES is a public authority under the RTI Act. The reasoning adopted in decisions that have been reported has tended to follow the government's position: PM CARES is a public charitable trust established by a trust deed, not constituted by statute, executive notification, or government order; it does not fall within the four establishment categories in Section 2(h); and the government's position that it was not substantially financed from the Consolidated Fund has been accepted as a relevant distinction.

It is important to note, however, that the judicial landscape on this question has been evolving, and the matter has been the subject of multiple proceedings at different stages. Readers who are researching this topic for litigation or academic purposes should verify the current state of proceedings and any subsequent decisions, as the position described here reflects the general trajectory of court decisions at the time of writing and not a final settled ruling that has closed all avenues of challenge.

What is clearly established is that RTI applications filed with PM CARES have not been processed under the RTI Act's framework, and the prevailing legal position — confirmed in the proceedings before the higher courts — has been that PM CARES is not obligated to respond.

The PMNRF Comparison: A Useful Contrast

Understanding the PM CARES controversy is easier when you compare it with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, or PMNRF, which is also a public charitable trust but is treated as a public authority for RTI purposes.

The Central Information Commission has held that the PMNRF is a public authority under Section 2(h). The CIC's reasoning has included the fact that the PMNRF has historically operated under the direct oversight of the Prime Minister's Office, that it has received contributions from government sources and government employees through official mechanisms, that its operations are administered using government infrastructure and PMO staff, and that it is effectively a continuation of a relief fund established in the post-independence period with strong government involvement. RTI applicants have successfully obtained information from the PMNRF — about fund receipts, disbursements, and beneficiaries.

The government's position is that PM CARES is distinguishable from PMNRF in its origin — it was established specifically as a voluntary public charitable trust to accept public donations, with no government appropriation — and in its operational independence. Critics of this position argue that the structural similarities between the two funds (both chaired by the Prime Minister, both receiving donations from government-linked entities, both disbursing for public purposes) are greater than the differences, and that the distinction the government draws is not supported by a principled reading of Section 2(h).

This comparison remains central to the academic and legal debate about PM CARES. The PMNRF's status as a public authority demonstrates that the RTI Act's framework can accommodate public charitable trusts linked to the Prime Minister's Office — making the government's position on PM CARES a specific legal claim about why this particular trust is different, not a general principle about all Prime Ministerial charitable funds.

What RTI Applications Can Access About COVID Relief

Even if PM CARES itself is not accessible through RTI, there is a substantial body of COVID relief and pandemic spending information that IS accessible through RTI applications to public bodies that are unambiguously within the Act's scope.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW)

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is the central government body responsible for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including the National COVID-19 Vaccination Programme. It is a public authority under the RTI Act. RTI applications to MOHFW can seek:

• Details of procurement contracts for vaccines, PPE, oxygen concentrators, and medical equipment under government schemes.
• Fund allocations and expenditure statements for the National Health Mission (NHM) and emergency COVID funds.
• Guidelines, protocols, and policy decisions made during the pandemic.
• Data on vaccine doses administered, vaccine wastage, and cold-chain infrastructure.

Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and CDSCO

The ICMR and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), which handles drug and vaccine regulatory approvals in India, are public authorities. RTI applications can seek:

• The basis and timeline of regulatory approvals for COVID-19 vaccines under Emergency Use Authorisation.
• Safety data and trial reports submitted to CDSCO as part of the approval process, to the extent not protected by commercial confidentiality exemptions.
• ICMR's internal communications and research findings on COVID diagnostics and treatment protocols.

Ministry of Finance

RTI applications to the Ministry of Finance can ask a question that is itself informative regardless of the answer: whether any appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of India was made to PM CARES. The government's consistent answer has been that no such appropriation was made. An RTI answer confirming this is on the public record and can be cited by researchers and journalists.

RTI applications to Finance can also seek information about the tax treatment of PM CARES donations under Section 80G, and about the CSR framework under which corporate donations to PM CARES were counted.

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO)

The PMO is a public authority and must respond to RTI applications. RTI applications to the PMO can seek:

• Whether any PMO staff, resources, or infrastructure were used in the administration or promotion of PM CARES.
• Any directions or guidelines issued by the PMO to central government departments regarding COVID relief under government schemes distinct from PM CARES.
• Correspondence between the PMO and central ministries on pandemic resource allocation.

The PMO's answers — or its refusals to answer, citing applicable Section 8 exemptions — are themselves informative about the relationship between the PMO and PM CARES.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)

The CAG is India's constitutional auditor, mandated under Article 148 of the Constitution to audit the accounts of the Union and the states. The CAG has audited government COVID expenditure — including expenditure through public health schemes and state governments. RTI applications to the CAG can seek any audit reports related to COVID relief spending under government programmes.

On PM CARES specifically, RTI applicants have asked the CAG whether any audit of PM CARES has been conducted or is planned. The government's position is that as a private trust, PM CARES is not subject to CAG audit. A confirmed answer to this RTI query is, again, itself a piece of information about the accountability architecture surrounding PM CARES.

State Governments

For pandemic relief spending at the state level — including funds distributed to state disaster management authorities, state health departments, and local bodies — the relevant public authorities are state government departments, which are fully subject to the RTI Act. State-level COVID expenditure under the SDRF (State Disaster Response Fund) and NDRF (National Disaster Response Fund) — both of which are statutory funds — is accessible through RTI to state governments and to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).

Alternative Accountability Mechanisms

Since RTI to PM CARES itself is blocked by the prevailing legal position, citizens seeking accountability for PM CARES operations can use other mechanisms.

Published audited accounts. PM CARES publishes annual audited accounts on its website, prepared by a private chartered accountant. These accounts show total donations received, fund balances, and major heads of expenditure. They are publicly available without any RTI application. Citizens and journalists have examined these accounts and reported on them.

Parliamentary questions. Members of Parliament can ask questions about PM CARES on the floor of Parliament. The government has been asked, and has answered, questions about PM CARES in both Houses. Answers given on the floor of Parliament are in the public domain — published in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha records — and are accessible to all citizens. Parliamentary questions have elicited information about PM CARES expenditure on ventilators, vaccines, and state support that may not be available elsewhere.

Public interest litigation. Citizens have approached the Supreme Court and High Courts by way of PIL seeking broader accountability and transparency for PM CARES. Court proceedings, including the petitions themselves and the government's counter-affidavits, are public records. The government's affidavits in these cases have provided information about PM CARES operations that functions as a form of court-supervised disclosure.

Income tax filings. Corporations that donated to PM CARES and claimed 80G deductions are required to disclose charitable donations in their annual income tax returns and in filings with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. These filings — while not accessible to individual citizens through RTI — are available to regulatory authorities. Listed companies disclose significant donations in their annual reports as part of SEBI-mandated disclosures, making large corporate donations to PM CARES traceable through public market filings.

SEBI and MCA filings. For listed companies, annual reports filed with stock exchanges under SEBI's Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations include disclosures about CSR expenditure, including donations to PM CARES. These filings are publicly available on the BSE and NSE websites without any RTI application.

The Broader Transparency Question

The PM CARES controversy sits within a larger debate about whether India's current framework for ensuring accountability in publicly significant charitable funds is adequate. The RTI Act, designed primarily for government bodies established by statute or substantially financed from public funds, was not specifically calibrated to address funds like PM CARES — entities that are legally private trusts but are chaired by the Prime Minister, receive substantial donations from government-controlled companies, and disburse funds for what are quintessentially public purposes.

The government's argument that PM CARES is fully comparable to any private charitable trust — just one that happens to have the Prime Minister as its chairman — is a legally defensible position given the text of Section 2(h). But critics argue that the structural reality of PM CARES — the mandatory ex officio membership of the Prime Minister and three senior cabinet ministers, the institutional use of the PM's name and prestige to solicit donations, the disbursement of funds on pandemic relief in parallel to government schemes — makes the characterisation of it as a purely private entity difficult to sustain as a matter of democratic accountability, even if it is technically accurate as a matter of trust law.

This is not a settled question. It sits at the intersection of trust law, constitutional law, administrative law, and transparency policy. Whether the RTI Act's definition in Section 2(h) is adequate to address entities like PM CARES, or whether it needs to be amended or interpreted more broadly, is a live question for policymakers, courts, and civil society.

What This Means for You as a Citizen

If you are a citizen who wants to understand how PM CARES funds were raised, managed, and disbursed, here is the practical picture.

An RTI application filed with PM CARES directly is unlikely to receive a substantive response. The fund does not treat itself as a public authority; the prevailing court decisions have not compelled it to do so; and there is currently no effective legal mechanism for an individual RTI applicant to enforce a response.

The most effective use of RTI for COVID relief accountability is to direct applications to the public bodies that received and disbursed government COVID funds — the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, ICMR, CDSCO, the Ministry of Finance, state health departments, and the NDMA. These bodies are unambiguously public authorities. The funds they managed and spent were public funds. RTI to these bodies will produce information about how the government's pandemic response was financed and executed through official channels.

For PM CARES-specific information, the published annual accounts on the PM CARES website, parliamentary question records, and disclosures in corporate annual reports are the accessible routes — not the RTI Act.

If you want to file RTI applications with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, ICMR, the PMO, the CAG, or any other central government public authority about COVID relief and pandemic spending, RTISathi.com provides guides on how to draft precise RTI applications for each public authority, what information to ask for, and how to follow up with First and Second Appeals if you are denied information or receive an incomplete response.