Anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal has disposed of a complaint alleging misuse of official position by public servants and irregularities in the collection and handling of contributions associated with the PM CARES Fund, saying that the complainant's explanation prima facie falls short.
The Lokpal, however, permitted the complainant to file a proper, comprehensive fresh complaint, primarily highlighting the material facts and particulars constituting offences.
The complaint was filed in June this year against "high dignitaries" in relation to the alleged acts of commission and omission concerning the PM Cares Fund (Trust).
The Centre had set up the fund in March 2020 with the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like the one posed by the Covid pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected. It was registered as a public charitable trust on March 27, 2020.
The total balance in the PM CARES Fund stood at Rs 8,452 crore as on March 31, 2025, up from Rs 7,173 crore a year ago, according to the latest audit reports.
The prime minister is the ex-officio chairman of the fund that consists entirely of voluntary contributions and does not get any budgetary support.
"After perusal of the complaint, prima facie, it seems that the gravamen of the allegations is in respect of activities other than constituting offence(s) ascribable to Chapter-III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988," said the October 9 order by a seven-member Lokpal bench headed by chairperson Justice A M Khanwilkar.
The chapter has provisions related to "offences and penalties" under the anti-graft law.
It then asked the complainant to file an "affidavit to highlight which of the allegation(s) in the present complaint is/are ascribable to offences punishable under the Act of 1988".
The complainant filed the affidavit duly sworn on August 26.
"In Form-I forming part of the complaint, the allegations against the named Union public servants concern alleged misuse of official position and fund-related irregularities connected with the collection, administration and handling of contributions associated with PM CARES Fund," read the affidavit, which is part of the Lokpal order.
In its order, the anti-corruption ombudsman noted that the complainant has made an attempt to overcome the deficiency in the complaint presented by him by filing this affidavit.
"However, after examining the affidavit read with the relevant portions of the complaint/document relied upon by the complainant, it is not possible to suggest that the contents of the complaint, as filed, are structured appropriately to justify a completely new prayer of the complainant (to initiate action against the named public servants for offence(s) under the Act of 1988); and ex consequenti (by way of consequence) to call upon the Lokpal to proceed further to direct a Preliminary Inquiry in that regard," it said.
The Lokpal noted that the explanation offered by the complainant prima facie falls short of the requirements and disposed of the complaint.
"To do substantial justice, therefore, we opt to dispose of this (instant) complaint without resorting to the course suggested by the complainant in the subject affidavit; and instead, permit the complainant to file a proper comprehensive fresh complaint primarily highlighting the material facts and particulars constituting offence(s) under Chapter-III of the Act of 1988, if so advised," the order stated.
Such a fresh complaint, if complete in all respects, can be considered appropriately by the Lokpal, without being influenced by the previous complaint, including this order, it said.
The complainant ought to present a properly drawn complaint containing all the relevant facts and material particulars arranged in sequence. If accepted at face value, it will be indicative of commission of offence(s) under Chapter III of the Act of 1988, so as to persuade the Lokpal to proceed further in the matter, the order said.
Besides, it is couched in such a manner that the complainant wants us to assume certain material facts and particulars to invoke the two provisions of the Act of 1988 pressed into service by the complainant, it said.
The suggestion of the complainant in the subject affidavit is to call upon the Lokpal to itself analyse the documents presented by the complainant and to cull out the existence of material facts and particulars constituting offence(s) under Chapter-III of the Act of 1988 while being conscious of the fact that the subject matter pertains to jurisdiction of other competent authority, the order said.
"Further, the complainant may not be relying on the same for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. That exercise is likely to impel us to assume certain facts or deduce certain conclusions on our own, which may or may not be even contemplated by the complainant. That is avoidable. More so, it would border on indulging in a roving and misdirected inquiry," it said.