Congress questions PM CARES spending as fund corpus swells to Rs 8,452 crore
Surjewala questions Rs 87.85 lakh expenditure against Rs 1,280 crore donations; asks why 93% of corpus was kept in fixed deposits
Congress on Wednesday questioned the utilisation of the PM CARES Fund, alleging that while around Rs 1,280 crore was received as donations, only Rs 87.85 lakh was spent, even as the fund’s corpus swelled to Rs 8,452 crore by March 2025.
Congress MP Randeep Surjewala questioned the purpose of retaining such a large corpus in a fund created during the Covid-19 pandemic.
“PM CARES or PM ‘Cares Not’?” Surjewala said, pointing to the gap between the donations received and the amount spent.
“The public gave generously from their hard-earned money with open hearts, but the audit report that emerged after a mysterious 1.5-year delay has laid bare the truth about this fund for the world to see,” he said.
Surjewala said only around 0.06 per cent of the total receipts had been utilised.
“If even during a pandemic and emergency, the public’s money wasn’t meant for children, the sick, and the helpless, then who is this treasure being amassed for?” he asked.
The PM CARES Fund, launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, had a closing balance of Rs 8,452 crore as on March 31, 2025, according to its latest audit statement.
Of the total corpus, Rs 7,846.65 crore, or nearly 93 per cent, was kept in fixed deposits. The remaining amount was held as cash in scheduled banks.
The statement also showed that the interest earned by the fund during 2024-25 nearly matched the donations received during the year.
The latest disclosure has come more than a year after the financial year ended on March 31, 2025. The statement was audited and signed only in the first week of August 2026.
Surjewala questioned the delay in making the audit details public.
“Why was this audit hidden for 1.5 years? When questions of accountability arise, why does the ‘system’ fall silent?” he said.
He alleged that the fund had become an example of “opportunity in disaster” rather than public service.
The Congress also questioned why nearly 93 per cent of the fund’s corpus was parked in fixed deposits despite the fund being created during a national emergency.
