Context:

Recently, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) informed the Lok Sabha Secretariat that Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot table questions or raise matters regarding:
• Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund)
• Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF)
• National Defence Fund (NDF)

The directive has generated significant political and constitutional debate on parliamentary oversight and transparency.

What Exactly Did the PMO Say?

Rule Citations:

The PMO cited the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha:

•         Rule 41(2)(viii): Questions “shall not relate to a matter which is not primarily the concern of the Government of India.”

•         Rule 41(2)(xvii): Questions “shall not raise matters that are under the control of bodies or persons not primarily responsible to the Government of India.”

The PMO noted that these funds are sourced entirely from voluntary public contributions and receive no allocations from the Consolidated Fund of India. Consequently, parliamentary questions on their operations, receipts, or utilisation are deemed inadmissible.

About the Funds:

1. PM CARES Fund

• Established: March 27, 2020, as a public charitable trust
• Objective: To respond to national emergencies and disasters
• Funding: Entirely voluntary; no government budgetary allocation
• Balance (March 2023): ₹6,283.7 crore
• Legal Status: Not a public authority under the RTI Act

2. Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF)

• Established: January 1948
• Purpose: Relief for natural calamities, major accidents, and riots
• Funding: Public contributions

3. National Defence Fund (NDF)

• Purpose: Welfare of armed and paramilitary forces and their families
• Administration: Managed by an executive committee chaired by the Prime Minister

Reasoning Behind the PMO’s Directive:

The PMO maintains that, as these funds:

1.       Do not draw from the Consolidated Fund of India, and

2.      Are administered as voluntary charitable trusts,

they are not primarily the concern of the Government of India under Lok Sabha rules. Therefore, questions regarding them are not admissible in Parliament.

Legal and Democratic Implications:

• Parliamentary Oversight: Restricts legislative scrutiny of funds receiving substantial public contributions
• RTI and Transparency: PM CARES is not a public authority under the RTI Act, though courts have acknowledged certain privacy protections
• Public Accountability: Raises concerns regarding executive responsibility and transparency for high-profile donation-based funds

Conclusion:

The PMO’s directive underscores a strict procedural interpretation that limits parliamentary oversight of certain funds. While legally grounded, it has sparked broader debates on democratic accountability, transparency, and legislative scrutiny, particularly for funds chaired by top constitutional office holders.