New Delhi: Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas has written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, objecting to reports that the government has advised the Lok Sabha Secretariat not to admit questions related to the PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and similar relief funds. According to Brittas, a CPI(M) leader from Kerala, the reported position – that such funds are “under the control of bodies or persons not primarily responsible to the Government of India” – would weaken parliamentary oversight and constitutional accountability.In his letter, Brittas does not just raise a moral or ethical problem with the Secretariat’s position. He has pointed to the government’s own official documents from 2020 to demonstrate that they establish PM CARES as a fund set up by the Union government and recognise it within the statutory framework of the Companies Act, 2013.The Ministry of Corporate Affairs clarification from March 2020: PM CARES is eligible for CSR activity, meaning that donations to it will earn donors a tax exemption.Brittas cites a Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) office memorandum dated March 28, 2020, issued during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The memorandum states that PM CARES was established with the objective of dealing with emergencies such as COVID-19 and clarifies that contributions to the fund qualify as eligible Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under item no. (viii) of Schedule VII of the Companies Act.Item no. (viii) provides that contribution to any fund set up by the Union government for socio-economic development and relief qualifies as CSR expenditure. The inclusion of PM CARES in this schedule means that the government itself considers it a fund set up by the Union government – even though it has sought to deny this, including in court.“This Office Memorandum leaves no scope for ambiguity as to the Government’s own understanding of the nature and character of PM CARES,” Brittas writes.Brittas further cites a Gazette notification dated May 26, 2020, through which Schedule VII was amended to explicitly include the “Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund)”, alongside the PMNRF, as an eligible CSR recipient. The notification specifically states that the amendment would be deemed effective from March 28, 2020 – that is, retrospectively.A Gazette notification in May 2020 formalises the clarification issued in March the same year by amending the Companies Act, 2013. PM CARES and PMNRF are funds set up by the Union government.So, first the Union government clarified that any contribution to PM CARES Fund qualifies as CSR, then it explicitly amended the Companies Act to include PM CARES by name.“If PM CARES were indeed a private fund outside governmental responsibility, its specific incorporation into the Companies Act, 2013 would be legally inconceivable,” Brittas writes.The MP argued that a fund that has been given explicit recognition through legislation and has received large sums from corporate and public sources, cannot be outside the scope of parliamentary scrutiny.“Given the serious implications such a position carries for parliamentary oversight and constitutional accountability, I respectfully submit that this reported executive position is untenable in law and deserves to be summarily rejected,” Brittas writes.Calling the reported attempt to bar questions “internally inconsistent” and contrary to principles of transparency, Brittas urged the Speaker to reject any Executive communication seeking to disallow questions on PM CARES, PMNRF or similar funds (the Union government has also said questions cannot be raised about the National Defence Fund or NDF).“The government cannot, on the one hand, amend a central law to confer statutory recognition and financial eligibility upon PM CARES, and on the other hand, disclaim governmental responsibility so as to exclude it from parliamentary scrutiny,” he writes, adding, “Such a position is not merely inconsistent; it strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy and accountability.”Background and PM CARES controversyThe PM CARES Fund was set up in March 2020 as a special relief fund to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Prime Minister as its chair. From the beginning, the way it was structured raised eyebrows. Although promoted by government authorities and using official channels, the trust deed described it as a separate entity rather than a government department.A screenshot from the PM CARES website, February 10, 2026.The Fund was registered as a public charitable trust and its deed was registered under the Registration Act, 1908 at New Delhi on March 27, 2020 – just a day before the MCA clarification cited earllier.For example, in April 2020, the Union finance ministry effectively made contributions to the Fund mandatory for employees, contradicting the claim that it is not a government body.The government refused to treated the fund as a public authority under laws like the Right to Information Act, 2005, which would have required routine disclosures about its finances, disbursement of funds and operations.The issue reached the Supreme Court in 2020, when petitioners asked the court to direct that money from PM CARES be transferred to the National Disaster Response Fund – which is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The court refused, upholding the separate existence of PM CARES and declining to order a CAG audit.Since then, there have been a series of legal challenges on related issues, including disputes over tax information and transparency challenges.The Delhi High Court observed in January 2026 that PM CARES had a right to privacy, although transparency activists stress the opposite – that the Fund should be subjected to transparency provisions, not shielded from public view – especially since serious doubts have arisen about its utilisation.The approach of the Union government towards PM CARES has contradicted earlier practice, when disaster relief funds like the PMNRF, which have existed for decades, were routinely subjected to far more public accountability norms, such as falling under the purview of the RTI Act.From time to time, the government has issued aggregate or high-level figures of funds received through press releases or replies in parliament, such as total amounts received under CSR, or total donationsover specific periods. But it has refused detailed accounting and declined detailed scrutiny by claiming it is not a public authority.