B K Hariprasad says citizens have a right to know how public-sector CSR funds are selected, distributed and monitored
BENGALURU (India CSR): Karnataka Congress president B K Hariprasad has questioned the alleged allocation of hundreds of crores in corporate social responsibility funds by state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited to organisations reportedly linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Citing a media investigation, Hariprasad claimed that around Rs. 668 crore of ONGC’s CSR expenditure had flowed to 20 RSS-linked organisations over approximately a decade. He demanded greater transparency and accountability in the deployment of resources controlled by public-sector enterprises.
“It’s reported that Rs. 668 crore of ONGC’s CSR funds reportedly flowed to 20 RSS-linked organisations over the last decade,” Hariprasad said in a post on X.
ONGC had not issued an immediate response to the allegations reported by PTI.
Media Report Triggers Political Questions
The controversy follows an investigation by The News Minute, which reported that ONGC provided approximately Rs.668.01 crore to 20 organisations identified by the publication as having links with the RSS.
According to the report, ONGC distributed around Rs. 4,531 crore among more than 2,000 organisations and projects between the first quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2025. The amount allegedly received by the identified organisations represented approximately 14.7% of this expenditure.
Some subsequent reports have cited figures approaching Rs. 671 crore by using a longer reporting period or a different method of calculation. The figures and organisational linkages remain allegations based on the media investigation and require an institution-level response and independent verification.
Hariprasad Questions RSS Funding Claims
Hariprasad said the reported CSR allocations should be examined alongside wider allegations concerning the use of public resources for organisations associated with the Sangh ecosystem.
He questioned how the RSS could claim institutional independence from government funding if organisations reportedly associated with it were receiving substantial support from a central public-sector enterprise.
“The issue is no longer registration alone; it is transparency, accountability, and the right of citizens to know how public money is being spent,” he said.
He also sought clarity on the funding structures, institutional relationships and legal status of the recipient organisations.
CSR Funds Are Not Ordinary Government Grants
The controversy requires an important distinction. ONGC’s CSR budget is derived from the company’s statutory obligation under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is not identical to money allocated through the Union Budget or collected directly as tax revenue.
However, ONGC is a government-controlled public-sector enterprise. Consequently, its CSR decisions carry a higher expectation of public accountability, institutional neutrality and transparent decision-making.
Calling PSU CSR expenditure “public money” may be legally imprecise in a narrow budgetary sense. Yet, from a governance perspective, citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing how such substantial corporate resources are allocated.
Is Funding an Ideological Affiliate Automatically Illegal?
An organisation’s ideological, cultural or social association does not automatically make it ineligible to undertake CSR projects.
CSR law permits companies to implement projects directly or through eligible Section 8 companies, registered public trusts, registered societies and certain statutorily constituted entities. Implementing agencies must satisfy the conditions under the CSR Rules, including applicable tax registrations, track-record requirements and registration through Form CSR-1.
The law expressly excludes direct or indirect contributions to political parties from the definition of CSR. However, it does not automatically prohibit grants to every organisation that may have ideological connections with a political or socio-cultural movement. Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014
Therefore, the central issue is not affiliation alone. The relevant questions are whether:
- Each recipient was legally eligible to act as an implementing agency.
- The funded activities fell within Schedule VII of the Companies Act.
- The projects were selected through an objective and documented process.
- Funds were utilised for approved social-development outcomes.
- ONGC adequately monitored and evaluated the projects.
- Any grant directly or indirectly supported political activities.
- Organisational relationships and potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Registration Debate Needs Legal Clarity
Hariprasad also raised questions concerning the RSS’s institutional registration. However, the legal status of the RSS and the eligibility of individual CSR recipients are separate matters.
If CSR funds were transferred to separately registered trusts, societies or Section 8 companies, the compliance assessment must focus on those recipient entities. It must examine their CSR-1 status, tax registrations, governing bodies, project records, utilisation certificates and impact reports.
The debate cannot be settled merely by stating that the RSS itself is registered or unregistered. A credible inquiry must follow the actual flow of money from ONGC to each implementing organisation and finally to the intended beneficiaries.
Transparency Must Extend Beyond Names and Amounts
ONGC publishes CSR policies and annual CSR reports. Its policy provides for annual action plans, implementing-partner criteria, monitoring, evaluation, impact assessment and disclosure. ONGC CSR Policy 2025
Nevertheless, formal disclosure alone may not answer questions about concentration, institutional relationships and beneficiary-level outcomes.
For every substantial CSR grant, particularly by a public-sector enterprise, disclosure should ideally include:
- The complete legal identity of the implementing agency.
- The organisation’s CSR registration number.
- The project’s location, duration and approved budget.
- The process used to select the implementing partner.
- Year-wise fund releases and actual expenditure.
- Measurable outputs and beneficiary information.
- Utilisation certificates and monitoring findings.
- Independent impact assessments, wherever legally required.
- Details of related parties and potential conflicts of interest.
ONGC maintains a public repository of its CSR annual reports, but the present controversy demonstrates the need for searchable and project-level disclosures that citizens can easily examine. ONGC CSR annual reports
The Larger Governance Question
CSR should neither become an extension of political patronage nor be judged solely through political association. Its legitimacy must rest on demonstrable public benefit, lawful implementation and measurable social impact.
Funding an organisation should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing merely because of its perceived ideological identity. At the same time, ideological proximity cannot become a substitute for competitive selection, professional capability or public-interest scrutiny.
If the projects delivered genuine benefits in education, healthcare, livelihoods or rural development, ONGC should publish the evidence. If the allocation process was disproportionately concentrated, inadequately documented or influenced by non-developmental considerations, corrective and regulatory action would be necessary.
The most effective response to the controversy would be a comprehensive disclosure from ONGC covering the recipient organisations, selection criteria, projects, expenditure, monitoring reports and outcomes. An independent review could further establish whether the allocations complied with the letter and spirit of India’s CSR framework.
The issue ultimately extends beyond the RSS, the Congress or ONGC. It concerns the institutional credibility of PSU-led CSR and whether citizens can confidently see where the money went, why particular organisations were selected and what measurable public value was created.
Also Read
