UPSC CARE Mains Practice 9th February 2026
Mains Practice Questions for the Day
- The exclusion of certain public charitable funds from parliamentary scrutiny raises concerns about transparency and accountability in governance.” Examine in the context of PM CARES and similar funds. (GS Paper II – Polity & Governance (Parliamentary Procedures, Accountability, Transparency)
- How are recent Budgetary interventions and enhanced access to the European Union market likely to transform the AYUSH sector from a domestic public health programme into a globally competitive industry? Critically examine the opportunities and challenges involved. (GS Paper III Economy & Science & Technology)
The exclusion of certain public charitable funds from parliamentary scrutiny raises concerns about transparency and accountability in governance.” Examine in the context of PM CARES and similar funds. (GS Paper II – Polity & Governance (Parliamentary Procedures, Accountability, Transparency)
Introduction:
Parliamentary oversight is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of public resources. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) recently stated that questions related to PM CARES, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF), and the National Defence Fund (NDF) are not admissible in Lok Sabha since these are public charitable trusts funded through voluntary contributions rather than the Consolidated Fund of India. This has sparked debate on the balance between legal autonomy and democratic accountability.
Body
Nature of PM CARES and Similar Funds
- Public Charitable Trusts: Established for emergency relief and welfare purposes.
- Voluntary Contributions: Not financed through taxpayer money directly.
- Not Statutory Bodies: Not created under the Constitution or an Act of Parliament.
- Outside RTI Framework: The government has maintained that PM CARES is not a “public authority.”
This classification limits parliamentary questioning under Rule 41 of Lok Sabha.
Rationale for Exclusion from Parliamentary Scrutiny
- Legal Status: Since these funds are not government-owned, they fall outside routine legislative oversight.
- Operational Flexibility: Reduced procedural constraints allow faster response during disasters.
- Distinct Objectives: Courts have recognised that funds like NDRF and PM CARES serve different purposes.
Concerns and Challenges
1. Transparency Deficit
- Public donations create expectations of openness.
- Absence of CAG audit raises questions about financial scrutiny.
2. Democratic Accountability
- Parliamentary questions are key tools for executive oversight.
- Exclusion may weaken checks and balances.
3. Ethical Governance
- Funds chaired by public officials blur the line between public and private entities.
- Perception of opacity can erode public trust.
4. Constitutional Debate
- Raises questions related to Article 12 (definition of “State”).
- Highlights the evolving nature of quasi-government institutions.
Arguments in Favour
- Enables rapid mobilisation of resources during crises.
- Encourages philanthropic participation without bureaucratic delays.
- Avoids politicisation of humanitarian relief mechanisms.
Way Forward
- Voluntary Transparency: Periodic public disclosure of contributions and expenditures.
- Independent Audits: Third-party audits to enhance credibility.
- Clear Regulatory Framework: Define accountability standards for quasi-public funds.
- Parliamentary Briefings: Non-binding disclosures to maintain democratic confidence.
Conclusion:
The debate over PM CARES reflects a broader governance challenge—balancing institutional autonomy with democratic accountability. While operational flexibility is essential during emergencies, sustained public trust depends on transparency. Strengthening disclosure mechanisms without undermining efficiency can help reconcile legal independence with the ethical demands of a modern democracy.
How are recent Budgetary interventions and enhanced access to the European Union market likely to transform the AYUSH sector from a domestic public health programme into a globally competitive industry? Critically examine the opportunities and challenges involved. (GS Paper III Economy & Science & Technology)
Introduction:
The Union Budget 2026–27 and the India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) mark a decisive shift in India’s approach to AYUSH, seeking to reposition it from a welfare-oriented, domestic healthcare adjunct to a globally integrated economic and knowledge sector.
Body
Budgetary Boost and Institutional Expansion
The 2026–27 Budget raised AYUSH allocation to ₹4,408 crore, reflecting a long-term commitment to scale, standardisation, and research. The proposal to establish three new All India Institutes of Ayurveda, on the lines of AIIMS, signals an effort to institutionalise traditional medicine through patient care, advanced research, and professional training. Simultaneously, funding for upgrading the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre at Jamnagar positions India as a global norm-setter in traditional medicine documentation and practice.
The 66% hike in the National AYUSH Mission strengthens co-location of AYUSH services within modern hospitals, upgrades pharmacies and drug-testing laboratories, and reorients AYUSH towards preventive healthcare. The introduction of Bharat-VISTAAR, a multilingual AI assistant, integrates digital governance by supporting medicinal plant farmers with real-time agronomic advice, market intelligence, and export certification.
EU Market Access and Global Integration
The India–EU FTA substantially lowers entry barriers for AYUSH professionals and products. Recognition of Indian qualifications in EU states without specific traditional medicine regulation allows Indian practitioners to offer services legally. Mutual recognition of laboratory testing and safety certifications reduces export friction, while acknowledgement of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) safeguards India’s intellectual heritage from biopiracy.
Opportunities and Challenges
Economically, the sector is projected to reach $26.5 billion by 2026, driven largely by startups and MSMEs. However, global integration also exposes AYUSH to heightened scrutiny. Concerns regarding scientific validation, presence of heavy metals, regulatory credibility, and controversies over “mixopathy” raise questions about patient safety and professional boundaries.
Conclusion:
While budgetary support and EU access can globalise AYUSH and generate economic growth, sustained success will depend on rigorous evidence generation, regulatory discipline, and ethical integration with modern medicine. The current push thus represents both an opportunity and a test of institutional maturity for India’s traditional healthcare systems.