Report claims nearly 14.7% of ONGC’s disclosed CSR expenditure went to 20 organisations identified as linked to the RSS ecosystem
NEW DELHI (India CSR): Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), India’s state-owned energy major, reportedly provided approximately Rs. 670.97 crore in Corporate Social Responsibility funding to 20 organisations identified as having links with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh between 2013 and 2025.
The figures emerged from an investigation published by The News Minute, based substantially on ONGC’s publicly available CSR disclosures. The investigation has opened a wider debate over how public-sector companies identify implementing partners, assess possible ideological affiliations and disclose the basis on which large CSR grants are approved.
The investigation does not, by itself, establish that the expenditure was unlawful or that the funded projects lacked social value. However, the size and concentration of the reported allocations raise important questions about transparency, neutrality, due diligence and accountability in the use of CSR resources controlled by a government-owned enterprise.
ONGC had not responded to the publication’s requests for comment when the investigation was published, according to The News Minute.
Key Findings at a Glance
| Particular | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Period covered by the investigation | 2013–2025 |
| Total funding to 20 identified organisations | ₹670.97 crore |
| CSR funding during the comparable 2015–2025 period | ₹668.01 crore |
| ONGC’s total disclosed CSR expenditure during that period | ₹4,531 crore |
| Share received by the 20 organisations | Approximately 14.7% |
| Organisations and projects covered in ONGC disclosures | More than 2,000 |
| Organisations identified as directly affiliated | 9 |
| Organisations founded or led by associated individuals | 9 |
| Organisations reported to have worked closely with the RSS | 2 |
The distinction between Rs. 670.97 crore and Rs. 668.01 crore is significant. The larger figure includes nearly Rs. 3 crore reportedly provided between 2013 and 2015, while the 14.7% calculation relates to the approximately Rs. 668.01 crore identified within the comparable 2015–2025 CSR expenditure base.
How the Organisations Were Classified
The investigation grouped the 20 recipients into three categories:
- Nine organisations described as directly affiliated with the RSS.
- Nine organisations founded or led by individuals reportedly associated with the Sangh.
- Two organisations that were found to have worked closely with the RSS.
The identification reportedly relied in part on “Seeing the Sangh”, a research database mapping more than 2,500 organisations associated with the wider Sangh ecosystem. The database was developed by a research team led by political scientist Dr Felix Pal and hosted by Sciences Po’s Centre for International Studies.
This methodology needs to be understood carefully. “RSS-linked” is not a statutory category under the Companies Act. The expression may encompass different relationships, including formal affiliation, historical association, leadership connections or collaboration on particular activities.
Consequently, every organisation and every project must be examined separately before reaching conclusions about regulatory compliance.
Assam Hospital Emerges as the Largest Project
The largest reported allocation concerned Swargadew Siu-Ka-Pha Hospital, a 300-bed multi-speciality hospital in Sivasagar district, Assam.
ONGC describes the institution as a major healthcare intervention intended to address the shortage of hospital beds and affordable specialised medical services in Upper Assam. ONGC’s own information states that the hospital was developed in phases with a project cost that eventually reached approximately Rs. 483 crore.
The institution is jointly associated with ONGC and Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan, an Aurangabad-based organisation established in 1989. The Pratishthan operates healthcare institutions, including Dr Hedgewar Hospital, and has described its work as inspired by RSS-linked social-service traditions.
From a CSR eligibility perspective, establishing and operating an affordable multi-speciality hospital can fall within Schedule VII of the Companies Act, which recognises healthcare, preventive healthcare and sanitation as permitted CSR activities.
The central governance question is therefore not merely whether the implementing institution had an ideological association. The relevant questions include:
- Was the project selected through an open and documented process?
- Was a comparative assessment of qualified healthcare organisations conducted?
- Were project costs independently appraised?
- Were construction and procurement expenditures adequately monitored?
- Did the hospital achieve the promised public-health outcomes?
- Were services affordable and accessible to disadvantaged communities?
- Did the implementing organisation use the funds only for the approved project?
ONGC has also published impact-assessment highlights concerning its CSR projects, including observations about the hospital’s operating systems, hygiene and management processes. The company’s disclosures indicate that there was scope for further operational integration even while certain systems were found to be in place.
₹140 Crore for National Cancer Institute, Nagpur
The second-largest recipient identified in the investigation was the Nagpur-based Dr Aabaji Thatte Seva Aur Anusandhan Sanstha.
ONGC reportedly provided approximately Rs. 140 crore between 2017 and 2022 to support the establishment of the National Cancer Institute in Nagpur. The institution is named after Dr Aabaji Thatte, who was closely associated with former RSS chief M.S. Golwalkar.
Cancer diagnosis and treatment infrastructure is clearly capable of qualifying under the healthcare provisions of Schedule VII. Nevertheless, a grant of this magnitude from a public-sector company should be accompanied by detailed public disclosure covering project appraisal, beneficiary commitments, capital costs, utilisation certificates, access policies and independent impact findings. Read more: ONGC Foundation extends support of Rs 100 crore for affordable Cancer Care facilities I India CSR
S-VYASA Received ₹15.53 Crore
Bengaluru-based Swami Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana, commonly known as S-VYASA, reportedly received Rs. 15.53 crore for hostel construction and yoga-related programmes in Karnataka, Odisha and Assam.
S-VYASA is a deemed-to-be university specialising in yoga education and research. CSR support for health promotion, education or research may qualify when the activities are properly aligned with Schedule VII and implemented in accordance with the CSR Rules.
However, the eligibility of each component depends on its actual purpose. Hostel construction, for example, should have a demonstrable connection with an eligible education, healthcare or beneficiary-focused intervention. A general institutional infrastructure grant should not automatically be presumed to qualify merely because the recipient works in an eligible sector.
Sewa Bharati Units Received Nearly ₹14 Crore
Different units of Sewa Bharati, associated with the Rashtriya Sewa Bharati social-service network, reportedly received a combined Rs. 13.95 crore.
The funded activities reportedly included:
- Flood-relief assistance.
- Medical equipment.
- Construction of yoga facilities.
- Student welfare programmes.
- Community-support interventions.
Disaster relief, healthcare and education can constitute legitimate CSR activities. Compliance, however, depends upon the legal eligibility of the implementing entity, the approved project design, utilisation of funds and the absence of political or non-CSR expenditure.
Ekal Vidyalaya-Associated Schools Received ₹8.69 Crore
Schools associated with the Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation reportedly received approximately Rs. 8.69 crore.
The Ekal model focuses principally on education in rural and tribal areas through single-teacher schools and community-based learning. Such work may fall under Schedule VII’s education and rural-development provisions.
The governance concern is whether selection was based on objective indicators such as educational deprivation, enrolment, learning outcomes, geographical need and the implementing organisation’s delivery capacity—or whether organisational proximity influenced the funding decision.
No conclusion on that question can be reached from aggregate payment figures alone.
Is Funding an RSS-Linked Organisation Illegal Under CSR Law?
Not automatically.
Neither the Companies Act nor the Companies (CSR Policy) Rules disqualifies an otherwise eligible organisation solely because its founders, office-bearers or institutional network have an ideological, religious, cultural or political association.
A company may implement CSR through eligible Section 8 companies, registered public trusts and registered societies, subject to the prescribed conditions. Since April 2021, most external CSR implementing agencies are also required to register with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs by filing Form CSR-1.
The project itself must relate to the subjects listed in Schedule VII, such as:
- Healthcare and sanitation.
- Education and vocational skills.
- Gender equality.
- Environmental sustainability.
- Rural development.
- Disaster management.
- Social and economic development of disadvantaged groups.
At the same time, the CSR Rules expressly state that a contribution made directly or indirectly to a political party under Section 182 of the Companies Act cannot be treated as CSR expenditure. The official Companies (CSR Policy) Rules also require CSR activities to be approved, monitored and reported through the company’s governance structure.
The RSS is not registered as a political party. Therefore, a grant to a legally eligible organisation associated with the RSS does not become a prohibited political contribution solely because of that association.
The legal position would change if evidence showed that CSR money was diverted to political campaigning, electoral activity, partisan mobilisation or purposes unrelated to the approved Schedule VII project.
Legal Compliance and Good Governance Are Different Tests
A project may technically satisfy Schedule VII and still create governance concerns.
For a private company spending its own CSR allocation, implementing-partner selection is primarily a matter of board responsibility and statutory compliance. In the case of a Central Public Sector Enterprise, the public-interest standard is higher because the enterprise is substantially owned by the government and manages resources on behalf of citizens.
ONGC is also subject to a wider accountability framework involving its board, administrative ministry, statutory auditors, the Comptroller and Auditor General, parliamentary scrutiny, stock-exchange requirements and the Right to Information Act.
The Department of Public Enterprises’ corporate-governance framework emphasises stakeholder protection, disclosure and transparency across Central Public Sector Enterprises. DPE also operates a CSR monitoring system intended to track CPSE allocations and project progress.
The issue, therefore, is not simply whether an organisation is “linked” to a particular social or ideological network. The deeper question is whether public-sector CSR decisions are demonstrably fair, competitive, evidence-based and insulated from political influence.
What ONGC’s CSR Policy Requires
ONGC’s CSR policy states that its board-approved framework governs project selection, implementation, monitoring, annual action plans and the choice of implementing partners. Its earlier policy also called for projects to be identified through a process involving suitable agencies, needs assessment where required and clearly defined outcomes.
The company’s annual CSR reports provide project-level expenditure information and refer to independent impact assessments of eligible projects. In FY 2023–24, ONGC reported a record CSR expenditure of approximately Rs. 634 crore.
ONGC’s current policy and annual reports are available through its official CSR disclosure portal.
These mechanisms establish formal compliance architecture. What remains necessary is sufficient disclosure for an independent observer to understand why particular organisations repeatedly received substantial allocations and how their performance compared with other implementing partners.
Six Questions ONGC Should Answer
To address the controversy credibly, ONGC should publicly clarify:
- Selection process: Were these implementing partners chosen through open invitations, competitive evaluation, government recommendations or direct nomination?
- Due diligence: What institutional, financial, governance and conflict-of-interest checks were conducted?
- CSR-1 status: Did all agencies receiving funds after the registration requirement took effect possess valid CSR Registration Numbers?
- Project outcomes: What measurable healthcare, education, relief or development outcomes were achieved against the approved budgets?
- Affiliation disclosure: Were organisational, trustee or leadership affiliations disclosed to the CSR Committee and the board before approval?
- Fund-use safeguards: What mechanisms ensured that CSR resources were not used for religious propagation, political activity or purposes outside the sanctioned project?
Need for a Public Implementing-Agency Dashboard
The controversy points to a structural weakness in India’s CSR disclosure system. Annual reports often publish project names, locations and expenditure figures, but they do not always provide enough information to assess the complete relationship between a company, an implementing partner and the ultimate beneficiaries.
For large CPSE projects, a public dashboard should disclose:
| Disclosure requirement | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Implementing agency’s legal name and CSR Registration Number | Confirms statutory identity and eligibility |
| Names of trustees or directors | Helps identify conflicts and related-party concerns |
| Project-selection method | Shows whether the process was fair and competitive |
| Schedule VII classification | Establishes the legal basis of expenditure |
| Sanctioned and released amounts | Enables financial tracking |
| Administrative and programme expenditure | Reveals how much reached actual activities |
| Beneficiary profile and location | Demonstrates public value and inclusion |
| Outcome indicators | Moves reporting beyond expenditure |
| Utilisation certificate | Supports financial accountability |
| Independent impact-assessment report | Allows verification of long-term results |
| Government or political recommendations | Reveals possible external influence |
| Previous grants received from the CPSE | Identifies concentration and repeat funding |
Concentration Risk Requires Examination
The reported Rs. 668.01 crore represented approximately 14.7% of ONGC’s CSR expenditure during the comparable ten-year period. That does not mean that 14.7% of all projects, beneficiaries or implementing agencies were linked to the RSS. It means that the 20 identified organisations reportedly received that proportion of the total expenditure.
Because capital-intensive hospitals and cancer-care institutions require exceptionally large investments, a small number of healthcare projects can substantially increase the concentration ratio.
An objective assessment should therefore distinguish between:
- The number of organisations funded.
- The number of individual projects.
- Capital expenditure and recurring programme expenditure.
- Funds released and funds actually utilised.
- Implementing-agency payments and assets directly created by ONGC.
- Ideological association and evidence of political use.
- Project output and independently verified social impact.
Without these distinctions, the data could be interpreted either too aggressively or too defensively.
CSR Cannot Become a Route for Partisan Patronage
The controversy has implications beyond ONGC and the RSS.
If public-sector CSR grants are seen as rewards for organisations close to the government of the day, the credibility of India’s entire CSR framework could be weakened. The same principle should apply regardless of which political party is in power or which ideological network is involved.
CSR funds are not discretionary political grants. They are board-governed social investments subject to the Companies Act, CSR Rules, accounting standards, monitoring requirements and, in the case of CPSEs, enhanced public accountability.
At the same time, an organisation should not be excluded from development partnerships merely because of a perceived ideological association. Exclusion without evidence would also be arbitrary. The appropriate safeguard is a transparent, neutral and outcome-based selection system.
The Way Forward
ONGC can respond to the debate by publishing a consolidated project-wise clarification covering the 20 organisations, the legal identities of the implementing agencies, selection procedures, sanctioned amounts, utilisation, beneficiary outcomes and impact-assessment findings.
The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Department of Public Enterprises may also consider commissioning an independent review—not to prejudge the projects, but to determine whether appropriate due diligence, neutrality and value-for-money standards were consistently applied.
India’s CSR system has developed into one of the world’s largest legally mandated corporate social-investment frameworks. Its legitimacy depends not only on how much companies spend, but also on who receives the money, how recipients are selected, what outcomes are delivered and whether the entire process can withstand public scrutiny.
The ONGC case underlines a fundamental principle: ideological association alone is not proof of illegality, but public-sector CSR expenditure of this scale demands transparency capable of removing any reasonable perception of favouritism.
