CPI(M) MP send letter to speaker; says govt can't call PM CARES private after writing it into law
text_fields
New Delhi: Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) leader from Kerala John Brittas has written to LS Speaker Om Birla objecting to reports that the government has advised the Lok Sabha Secretariat not to allow questions on the PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and similar relief funds.
The CPI(M) leader from Kerala argued that the reported reasoning—that these funds are not under the control of authorities primarily accountable to the Union government—would significantly dilute parliamentary oversight and constitutional responsibility.
In his letter, Brittas went beyond raising ethical concerns and relied on the government’s own official records from 2020 to contest the position. He pointed out that these documents clearly establish PM CARES as a fund created by the Union government and recognised within the statutory framework of the Companies Act, 2013, The Wire reported.
He referred to an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on March 28, 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, which stated that PM CARES had been set up to address emergencies such as the pandemic.
The memorandum also clarified that donations to the fund would qualify as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under Schedule VII of the Companies Act. Brittas noted that this particular provision applies only to funds established by the Union government for socio-economic development and relief, indicating that the government itself treated PM CARES as such a fund.
Brittas further cited a Gazette notification dated May 26, 2020, through which Schedule VII was amended to explicitly name the PM CARES Fund—along with the PMNRF—as an eligible recipient of CSR contributions. He highlighted that the amendment was given retrospective effect from March 28, 2020, reinforcing the government’s formal recognition of the fund. According to him, this sequence of actions showed that the Union government first clarified the CSR status of PM CARES and then amended the law to include it explicitly.
He argued that if PM CARES were genuinely a private entity outside governmental responsibility, its specific incorporation into the Companies Act would be legally implausible. Brittas maintained that a fund recognised through legislation and supported by substantial corporate and public contributions could not reasonably be kept beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny.
Stating that the reported executive stance had serious implications for legislative oversight and constitutional accountability, Brittas urged the Speaker to reject it as untenable in law. He described the attempt to bar questions on such funds as internally contradictory and contrary to principles of transparency, and asked the Speaker to dismiss any executive communication seeking to prevent discussion on PM CARES, PMNRF or similar funds, including the National Defence Fund.
Brittas concluded by asserting that the government could not simultaneously grant statutory recognition and financial legitimacy to PM CARES through a central law while denying responsibility in order to shield it from parliamentary questioning. Such a position, he said, was not only inconsistent but also undermined the foundations of parliamentary democracy and accountability.