💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Transparency and Accountability

  • Activists raise alarm over PM CARES denial of access to audit statements

    Why in the News

    The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund has not published audited financial statements for the last three financial years. The government maintains that the trust is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and is therefore not bound by its disclosure requirements. Activists argue that the fund has all the characteristics of a public body. They point out that the Prime Minister is its Chairperson, Union Ministers serve as ex officio trustees, and government employees have contributed from their salaries. Yet, the fund remains outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).


    What is the PM CARES Fund?

    1. Establishment: Set up in March 2020 and registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, with its trust deed registered in New Delhi on 27 March 2020, to support relief during public health emergencies and other disasters.
    2. Composition: The Prime Minister serves as ex officio Chairperson, and the Union Ministers of Defence, Home Affairs and Finance serve as ex officio trustees.
    3. Funding: Funded entirely through voluntary contributions from individuals and organisations, with the government stating it receives no budgetary support.
    4. Tax and foreign funding benefits: Donations qualify for a 100% deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, count as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, and the fund holds an exemption under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to receive donations from overseas.

    What financial disclosure has the fund made?

    1. Last published statement: The last publicly available audited statement, for financial year 2022 23, showed an opening balance of Rs 5,415.65 crore, voluntary contributions of Rs 909.64 crore, total receipts of Rs 6,723.07 crore, total payments of Rs 439.38 crore, and a closing balance of Rs 6,283.68 crore as of 31 March 2023.
    2. Disclosure gap: Only the audited statements for 2019 20, 2020 21, 2021 22 and 2022 23 are available on the fund’s website, leaving the last three financial years without any published audit.
    3. Primary use: The fund has primarily financed India’s COVID 19 response and emergency health infrastructure.

    Why does the government’s “not a public authority” position sit uneasily with the fund’s structure?

    1. Government’s legal position: The government maintains the trust is not a public authority under the RTI Act, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs retrospectively amended the relevant Companies Act rules to support this position.
    2. Activists’ counter: Activists argue the fund was presented as set up by the Union government, carries the sanctity of the Prime Minister’s office as chairperson, and drew contributions from government employees’ salaries, features that make it appear to be a public authority in substance.
    3. The accountability gap: The fund remains outside the RTI Act’s disclosure obligations, outside parliamentary scrutiny, and outside audit by the CAG, the three principal mechanisms that apply to ordinary government spending.

    What are the challenges to ensuring transparency in the PM CARES Fund?

    1. A named precedent: Activists cite the electoral bonds case, where sustained anonymity in political funding enabled quid pro quo arrangements between donors and the government, before the Supreme Court struck the scheme down in February 2024 for violating the right to information.
    2. No independent constitutional audit: Without CAG audit, no independent constitutional auditor verifies how contributions, including those from government employees’ salaries, are spent.
    3. Retrospective rule change: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ retrospective amendment to Companies Act rules narrows the scope for legal challenge based on the fund’s original design.
    4. CSR channel scrutiny: Because CSR contributions to PM CARES count toward companies’ mandatory CSR spending obligations, opacity in fund utilisation also affects corporate accountability for those obligations.
    5. No periodic review clause: Unlike time bound government schemes, PM CARES has no periodic legislative or parliamentary review clause forcing disclosure at fixed intervals.

    Conclusion

    The PM CARES Fund’s structure gives it the outward markers of a public authority, a Prime Minister led chairpersonship, ministerial trustees and salary contributions from government employees, while its legal classification as a private trust keeps it outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny and CAG audit. Three consecutive years without a published audited statement leave activists’ comparison to the electoral bonds case as the operative risk to track. Whether the fund publishes its pending audits or its RTI exempt status changes remains the open question.

    Back2Basics:

    Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India

    1. Constitutional basis: The CAG is a constitutional authority under Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution, appointed by the President.
    2. Governing law: Its powers and duties are laid out in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
    3. Mandate: Audits all receipts and expenditure of the Union and state governments, including bodies substantially financed by government grants, and reports findings for placement before the legislature.
    4. Tenure and independence: Holds office for six years or until age 65, whichever is earlier, and can be removed only through a process similar to a Supreme Court judge’s removal.
    5. Relevance here: PM CARES Fund’s exclusion from CAG audit means its accounts face no scrutiny from this constitutional auditor, unlike most bodies with government backed establishment.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

    Linkage: This PYQ tests the role of the RTI Act in promoting transparency and accountability in public institutions.The article examines the PM CARES Fund’s exemption from the RTI Act and the resulting concerns over public accountability.

  • NCRB data shows chronic pendency under the National Honour Act, even as government moves to add Vande Mataram

    Why in the News?

    National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data spanning 2014 to 2024 on the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 shows pendency above 90% and a conviction rate below 16%. The government is simultaneously pushing an amendment to criminalise insult to Vande Mataram on par with the national anthem, despite the existing law’s poor enforcement record.

    What is the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971?

    1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is an Indian law that bans the burning, mutilation, destruction, or disrespect of the national flag, the Constitution, and the national anthem.

    Key Rules and Penalties

    1. National Flag and Constitution: Section 2 prohibits burning, damaging, defacing, or showing disrespect to the flag or Constitution in any public place.
    2. National Anthem: Section 3 penalizes anyone who stops people from singing the national anthem or creates a disturbance during it.
    3. Punishment: Violations are punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. Repeat offenders face a minimum prison term of one year.
    4. Exceptions: Peaceful or lawful criticism aimed at changing or amending the Constitution or flag does not count as a crime

    Why does the enforcement record complicate the case for expanding the law?

    1. Pendency scale: Over 90% of cases registered under the Act between 2014 and 2024 remain pending, indicating a chronic backlog rather than an occasional delay.
    2. Low conviction: A conviction rate below 16% suggests weak evidentiary standards, prosecutorial capacity constraints, or both, in cases actually brought to trial.
    3. Expansion without fixing enforcement: Adding Vande Mataram to the Act’s protected symbols expands what the law covers without addressing why the existing provisions on the national anthem and flag are so poorly enforced.
    4. Symbolic versus functional legislation: A law with a sub-16% conviction rate functions more as a symbolic statement of state intent than as an operative deterrent.

    Conclusion

    The government’s push to expand the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 proceeds without addressing why the existing law convicts fewer than one in six prosecuted cases. Enforcement capacity, not statutory scope, is the constraint the amendment leaves unaddressed.

      Back2Basics

      The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026:

      1. It is a legislative proposal introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 24, 2026. It amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to extend statutory protection to India’s national song, Vande Mataram.

      Key Provisions

      1. Inclusion of the National Song: Amends Section 3 of the 1971 Act to place Vande Mataram under the same legal umbrella as the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana.
      2. Offenses Covered: Criminalizes intentionally preventing the singing of the national song or causing a disturbance at an assembly engaged in its rendition.
      3. Penalties: Proposes imprisonment for up to three years, a monetary fine, or both for first-time offenders, and a mandatory minimum of one year in prison for subsequent convictions

    1. Nilekani to lead task force on exams: Modi

      Why in News?

      Prime Minister Modi constituted a six member high powered task force headed by Nandan Nilekani to recommend steps to secure India’s examination system, as the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 is set to be introduced in Parliament.

      Key Highlights

      • The task force is headed by Nandan Nilekani and includes S. Somanath, Tapan Deka, V. Kamakoti, Anita Karwal, and Amrit Lal Meena.
      • It has been tasked with recommending measures to make the public examination system leak proof, transparent, secure, and technology driven.
      • The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 is scheduled to be introduced during the Monsoon Session of Parliament.
      • The proposed reforms seek to strengthen exam security, digital monitoring, accountability, and integrity in recruitment and entrance examinations.
      • Pralhad Joshi has assumed additional charge as Union Education Minister following the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan.

      Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

      • Enacted to prevent unfair practices such as paper leaks, impersonation, and organised cheating in public examinations.
      • Covers examinations conducted by bodies such as: UPSC, SSC, RRBs, NTA, IBPS, and Other notified central recruitment agencies
      • Prescribes:
        • Imprisonment of 3 to 5 years and a fine up to ₹10 lakh for individuals involved in unfair means.
        • Imprisonment of 5 to 10 years and a fine of at least ₹1 crore for organised paper leak syndicates.
      • Offences are cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.

      [2024, GS2, 15 marks] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

      [2018] Consider the following statements:

      1. As per the right to education (RTE) Act, to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a state, a person would be required to possess the minimum qualification laid down by the concerned State council of Teacher education.
      2. As per the RTE Act, for teaching primary classes, a candidate is required to pass a Teacher Eligibility Test conducted in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education guidelines
      3. In India, more than 90 % of teacher education institutions are directly under the State Governments.

      Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

      [A] 1 and 2

      [B] 2 only

      [C] 1 and 3

      [D] 3 only

    2. If amendment bill to the Whistleblowers Act, 2011 tabled in the Parliament is passed, there may be no one left to protect. Critically evaluate.

    3. In the light of the Satyam Scandal (2009), discuss the changes brought in corporate governance to ensure transparency, accountability.

    4. In the integrity index of Transparency International, India stands very low. Discuss briefly the legal, political, economic, social and cultural factors that have caused the decline of public morality in India.

    5. Effectiveness of the government system at various levels and people’s participation in the governance system are inter-dependent. Discuss their relationship with each other in context of India.

    6. “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

      The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is a cornerstone of transparent and accountable governance in India. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 introduced changes to the service conditions of the CIC and ICs.

      Amendments to the RTI Act, 2019

      The tenure of the CIC and ICs (earlier fixed at 5 years) is now to be determined by the Central Government.

      The salaries, allowances, and other service conditions of CICs and ICs are also subject to executive notification, replacing the earlier parity with Election Commissioners.

      The status and equivalence of the CIC and ICs with constitutional authorities like the Election Commission have been removed.

      Impact on Autonomy and Independence

      Executive Control Over Tenure, undermines security of office and increasing executive dependence.

      The original status equal to the Election Commission is withdrawn, reducing the Commission’s symbolic and functional autonomy.

      Threat to Federal Autonomy- Centre’s control over State Information Commissions’ service conditions.

      Chilling Effect on Decision-Making- Fear of punitive transfers or reduced tenure can deter bold and impartial rulings against powerful authorities.

      Perceived loss of independence can erode citizens’ confidence in the Commission as a neutral watchdog.

      Compromised autonomy weakens enforcement of the right to information, curbing transparency and accountability.

      Other issues (Satark Nagrik Sangathan Report)

      7 out of 29 Information Commissions were completely defunct between July 2023 and June 2024

      In 2024, 9 Commissions were functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner

      Rising Backlogs- Over 4 lakh appeals and complaints pending

      High Rejection Rate- The CIC returned 42% of appeals/complaints received

      Since 2005, only 9% of all Information Commissioners have been women

      Way Forward

      Establish a National Coordination Committee (NCC) to monitor RTI implementation and ensure uniformity across states.

      Fill vacancies in Information Commissions promptly to prevent delays and backlogs.

      Engage information management experts for proper classification, cataloguing, and storage of records.

      Introduce a separate legal chapter to protect RTI applicants and activists from harassment and retaliation.

      Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Thus, the autonomy of the Information Commissions must be safeguarded to strengthen Right to Information under Article 19.

    7. Reforming the government delivery system through the Direct Benefit Transfer Scheme is a progressive step, but it has its limitations too. Comment.

      As per World Bank (2023), India’s DBT architecture is the largest social protection systems globally, covering over 900 million people.

      Progressive Aspects of the DBT Scheme

      Cost Savings – DBT system helped India achieve by eliminating ghost beneficiaries, duplication, and leakages. (BlueKraft Digital Foundation, 2025)

      Better targeting – Subsidy allocations reduced from 16% (pre-DBT) to 9% of total government expenditure.

      Transparency and Reduction in Leakages – DBT has significantly reduced ghost beneficiaries and duplication. Eg-In PAHAL (LPG subsidy)

      Financial Inclusion – PM Jan Dhan Yojana enabled over 50 crore accounts, empowering poor women and rural households to receive funds directly.

      Efficiency and Timeliness – Eliminated intermediaries and delays. Eg-MNREGA, PM-KISAN, and PMUY payments.

      Strengthening Governance Accountability – Real-time monitoring via Public Financial Management System (PFMS) ensures audit trails and transparency.

      Inclusive Welfare Delivery and targeted support during crises. Eg-20 crore women Jan Dhan accounts.

      Promotes Digital and Cashless Economy – Eg- UPI handles 85% of India’s digital payments, processing (June 2025).

      Limitations of DBT Implementation

      Exclusion Errors: Aadhaar authentication failures lead to denial of benefits. Eg- Jharkhand PDS (2017) saw 10-15% exclusion (NITI Aayog).

      Digital Divide: Only 43% rural households have internet access (NFHS-5, 2021).

      Weak Banking Infrastructure: Shortage of bank branches and CSPs in rural and hilly areas.

      Data Privacy and Security Risks: Eg- Aadhaar and CoWIN data leaks.

      Technocratic Bias: Focus on automation sidelines those lacking digital literacy or documentation

      Administrative Delays: Verification and coordination issues cause payment rejections or delays. Eg- payment delays in MGNREGA

      Limited Grievance Redressal: Weak feedback mechanisms for correction of DBT errors.

      Way Forward

      Improve Authentication: Use offline Aadhaar, multi-factor verification, and local validation.

      Institutional Reforms: Apply Business Process Re-engineering (2nd ARC) for simpler workflows.

      Social Audits and Human Interface: Combine digital governance with local institutions for last-mile trust.

      Strengthen Digital Infrastructure: Accelerate BharatNet Phase-II to connect all Gram Panchayats

      Enhance Digital Literacy: Expand PMGDISHA and integrate digital literacy in school curricula (e-Kidz, IT clubs).

      India must move toward “Technology with Inclusion” – ensuring no beneficiary is left behind.

    8. What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?

      The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, was enacted to curb widespread malpractices, paper leaks, and organised cheating in recruitment and entrance examinations conducted by central authorities.

      Aims and Objectives of the Act

      Provide clear legal framework to deal with issue of paper leaks

      Defining Unfair Practices – Includes leakage of question papers, tampering of answer sheets, manipulation of computer systems, and collusion with officials or service providers.

      Empowering Examination Authorities – Allows surprise checks, blacklisting of service providers, and enhanced oversight mechanisms.

      Authorises the Centre to refer cases to Central Investigation Agencies for probing large-scale malpractices.

      Enables setting up of special courts for time-bound adjudication of offences.

      Stringent Punishments – Prescribes 3-5 years of imprisonment and fines up to , extendable for organised crimes, to restore public confidence.

      Addressing Organised Examination Crimes – Provides for property attachment and prosecution of institutions involved in organised cheating networks.

      Deterring Unfair Means – Prevents cheating, impersonation, and paper leaks, ensuring transparency, fairness, and credibility in examinations.

      Significance

      Ensuring Integrity of Public Examinations

      Deterring Organised Malpractices

      Protecting Merit and Equal Opportunity

      Enhancing Accountability of Examination Authorities

      Promoting Transparency and Trust

      Strengthening Governance and Fair Recruitment

      Coverage under the Act

      The Act applies to “Public Examinations” conducted by authorities listed in its Schedule or notified later by the Central Government.

      The Schedule presently includes:

      Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

      Staff Selection Commission (SSC)

      Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs)

      Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)

      National Testing Agency (NTA) and other Central Government recruitment bodies.

      University and State Education Board examinations are not automatically covered unless specifically notified by the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act.

      Limitations of the Act

      Limited Coverage – State Boards and Universities are not automatically covered.

      No Dedicated Investigative Mechanism – Investigation left to DSP-level officers

      Technology Gaps – Insufficient use of digital tracking, encryption, and data protection tools to prevent leaks.

      Ambiguity in Defining “Unfair Means” – The broad wording may lead to subjective interpretation and misuse.

      Heavy reliance on Central Government notification powers may limit federal flexibility.

      Focuses mainly on punitive measures, not on systemic prevention and capacity-building.

      Judicial Burden – Creation of special courts without adequate infrastructure may lead to delays in trial.

      Training Deficit – Lack of awareness and training among invigilators and exam staff undermines effective implementation.

      The Act represents a major reform to uphold the integrity, fairness, and accountability of India’s examination system.

      Civil Services