The RTI filed by civil rights activist Prafful Sarda reveals that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been funding the Deepawali celebrations from his own pocket since 2014. The RTI reply shared by Sarda through his X account @Prafful_sarda confirmed that the government had not spent any amount on these celebrations; Prime Minister Modi himself had borne the costs out of his own pocket.

This revelation adds to the story of PM Modi’s personal approach to his official duties and shows a trend towards austerity and personal responsibility. This is not the first time that Modi has personally borne the costs of his leadership. Previous RTI findings have shown that he also pays his medical expenses out of pocket, a move consistent with his public image as a role model and emphasis on personal discipline.

This has drawn a whole range of reactions as Prime Minister Modi’s supporters hailed this act as a proof of his integrity and cited it as part of his broader initiatives such as ‘Fit India’ and ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’ in which he advocates not only , but practices minimal dependence on public funds for personal needs. Supporting him considers this personal investment in the Deepawali celebrations as his commitment to preserving cultures and unity, which comes at personal cost.

Sarda noted that critics, on the other hand, argue that while the gesture is laudable, it raises questions about the broader implications for transparency and the separation of personal and public spending by officials. They argue that such actions could be interpreted as a form of personal branding or could potentially influence public perception in a way that blurs these boundaries.

Since the news broke, the focus has not only continued to be on Prime Minister Modi’s personal financial decisions but has also reignited discussions on the role of RTI in maintaining transparency and accountability in governance. Prafful Sarda’s continuous use of RTI to reveal the details of government spending has always played a crucial role in creating an informed public debate, thereby informing more people about how their leaders conduct their personal and official activities.