PM CARES Fund Held Rs 8,452 Crore, Used Just 0.01%
PM CARES report shows Rs 7,846 crore in fixed deposits, forming the majority of its closing balance.
- The PM CARES Fund had a closing balance of about ₹8,452 crore in FY 2024–25.
- Nearly ₹7,846.65 crore was held in fixed deposits.
- Fixed deposits represented around 93 per cent of the total corpus.
- Interest income was approximately ₹469 crore.
- Domestic donations declined to ₹479.05 crore.
- Foreign donations fell to ₹9.28 lakh.
- Total payments dropped to ₹87.85 lakh from about ₹15.60 crore.
- Most spending went to the PM CARES for Children Scheme.
- Supporters say the reserve can help during future emergencies.
- Critics want greater transparency regarding donors, decisions, and spending.
- The fund’s RTI status remains a subject of public debate.
- The figures have renewed discussion about whether emergency funds should remain largely unspent. PM CARES Fund Corpus Reaches ₹8,452 Crore
New Delhi: The PM CARES Fund recorded a closing balance of approximately ₹8,452 crore at the end of the financial year 2024–25, according to its latest audited statement. The fund, created in 2020 to respond to emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, received substantial income during the year but spent only ₹87.85 lakh.
The spending amounted to a very small fraction of the fund’s total corpus. Most of the balance—₹7,846.65 crore, or nearly 93 per cent—was held in fixed deposits with scheduled banks. Another portion was kept in savings accounts, allowing the fund to remain financially secure while earning interest.
The figures have prompted questions about how a fund created for emergencies is being used. Supporters may argue that maintaining a large reserve is necessary because disasters can arise suddenly and require immediate financial resources. Critics, however, say that keeping most of the money idle raises concerns about deployment, transparency, and public accountability.
Interest becomes major income source
Interest from fixed deposits emerged as the fund’s largest source of income during the year. The deposits generated approximately ₹469 crore in interest. This meant the fund continued to grow even though fresh donations declined compared with the previous financial year.
Domestic donations fell from ₹681.81 crore in 2023–24 to ₹479.05 crore in 2024–25. Foreign donations also declined, from ₹11.35 lakh to ₹9.28 lakh. Despite the fall in donations, overall receipts remained strong because of interest income, refunds, and other entries recorded in the audited statement.
The numbers show how the fund’s financial structure has changed. In its early years, donations were the most visible source of support, particularly when citizens and companies contributed during the pandemic. As the fund accumulated money in bank deposits, interest became increasingly important.
Sharp fall in payments
The fund’s payments dropped sharply during 2024–25. It spent ₹87.85 lakh, compared with approximately ₹15.60 crore in the previous financial year. Nearly the entire amount—around ₹87.84 lakh—was reportedly used for the PM CARES for Children Scheme.
The scheme was created to support children who lost parents or guardians during the COVID-19 crisis. Assistance can be important for education, healthcare, and long-term welfare, but the relatively small expenditure compared with the overall corpus has raised questions about whether more funds could be directed towards emergency relief or public welfare.
The limited spending may reflect the absence of a large national emergency during the year. A reserve fund is expected to remain available until circumstances require its use. However, the public debate centres on whether a fund of this scale should support more ongoing disaster preparedness, medical infrastructure, relief work, or assistance to vulnerable communities.
Public concern over transparency
The audit figures became a subject of intense discussion on social media. Some users questioned why such a large amount was being kept in fixed deposits instead of being used for citizens facing hardship.
Activist Anjali Bharadwaj also questioned the fund’s large unspent balance and raised concerns about limited public scrutiny. Critics have repeatedly argued that the PM CARES Fund should provide greater information about its donors, decision-making process, and expenditure.
The fund has maintained that it is a public charitable trust rather than a government authority. This legal position has led to continuing debate over whether it should come under the Right to Information Act. For citizens who contributed money believing it would help during emergencies, greater disclosure could improve confidence.
At the same time, financial prudence cannot be ignored. Keeping emergency funds in fixed deposits allows the corpus to earn interest and remain available when needed. The central question is therefore not simply why the fund has saved money, but whether its reserve policy, spending priorities, and governance arrangements are sufficiently clear to the public.