New Delhi: Parliamentary questions and related proceedings on the PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and the National Defence Fund have been ruled out under the rules of the Lok Sabha, after the Prime Minister’s Office communicated its position to the Secretariat of the Lower House.The communication, conveyed through established parliamentary channels, states that matters connected to these funds do not fall within the scope of questions, discussions or other proceedings permitted under the Lok Sabha’s rulebook. The Secretariat has, in turn, circulated the clarification to ensure uniform application during the processing of notices submitted by members.
According to officials familiar with the exchange, the position rests on the institutional character of the three funds and the limits set by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. These rules require that questions relate to subjects for which the government is responsible and over which ministers can provide authoritative answers on the floor of the House. The PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and the National Defence Fund are structured as public charitable trusts associated with the Prime Minister’s office, rather than as budgetary heads voted by Parliament.
The clarification has immediate procedural implications. Notices seeking information on receipts, disbursements, beneficiaries or governance of these funds are liable to be disallowed at the scrutiny stage. Members may still raise broader policy questions on disaster management, defence preparedness or welfare measures that are funded through the Consolidated Fund of India or through line ministries, but not queries that single out these trusts.
Supporters of the decision argue that it reflects long-standing parliamentary practice. They note that questions are not admitted on matters outside the executive responsibility of a ministry or where answers would require disclosure from entities not subject to parliamentary accountability. The National Defence Fund, established in the early years after Independence to receive voluntary contributions for defence purposes, has historically been treated as outside the question hour framework. Similar reasoning has been applied to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, which has existed for decades and operates through voluntary donations.
The PM CARES Fund, set up during the Covid-19 crisis to mobilise resources for emergency response, has attracted sustained political and legal scrutiny since its creation. Debates have centred on transparency, audit mechanisms and oversight, with critics arguing that parliamentary scrutiny is essential given the scale of donations and the public role of the Prime Minister in its stewardship. The government has consistently maintained that the fund is a charitable trust, audited by independent auditors, and that it does not draw from the Consolidated Fund.
Within parliamentary circles, the Secretariat’s acceptance of the PMO’s position is seen as reinforcing a boundary between executive accountability and the autonomy of trusts linked to high constitutional offices. Former parliamentary officials point out that the Speaker’s authority to admit or disallow questions is guided by the rules and established precedents, and that similar disallowances have occurred in the past on issues deemed non-justiciable or outside ministerial purview.
Opposition members, however, contend that the distinction creates a gap in democratic oversight. They argue that when funds are chaired or administered by the Prime Minister and receive large-scale public contributions, Parliament should have a forum to seek explanations. Some have indicated that while questions may be barred, other parliamentary devices such as debates, zero hour mentions or committee deliberations could still be explored, provided they stay within procedural limits.