The question of transparency regarding financial assistance and donations (FADC) provided to citizens from the state treasury through the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) is not easily answered at present. Although the issue of FADC transparency has been raised for three decades, long-term practice has not yielded the expected improvements.

The innumerable incidents of those in power using the country's revenue to support their cadres and have fun have raised questions about the political leadership. The Ministry of Home Affairs distributed the Aasach money without naming anyone, did not keep documents like medical certificates and bills even after the patient disclosed the reason for treatment, provided money to people they liked without disclosing the reason, and provided money by giving reasons like 'to deal with the political situation'.

It was common for political workers to enjoy themselves by listening to ghazals in restaurants after knowing the amount provided by the Home Ministry. The Home Minister was seen spending such money not only in his own party but also to bring discord in the opposition party.

Based on information about the extreme misuse of revenue money, the Chairman of the Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives, Hdayesh Tripathi, had a study of Aasach in 2052 and made many examples of the irregularities public. The meeting of the Accounts Committee held on 17th of Poush, 2009 had given instructions to the government to audit the amount spent under the heading of Aashach for the first time, to submit the bill if the amount was given for the treatment of the patient, and to set certain criteria while providing assistance. The Accounts Committee had also given instructions to the departmental minister to submit the details of such expenses to the House of Representatives mentioning the name and reason of the person receiving the assistance.

The Accounts Committee had said that when the name of the person receiving the assistance was made public, everyone would know about the mischief. According to a study conducted by the Accounts Committee at that time, it was seen that only when calculating the assistance amount of more than 10 thousand rupees per person, 40 million rupees were distributed every year. The Committee had also started an investigation into the people and organizations receiving the assistance.

According to the data provided to the Accounts Committee by the Home Department, most of the Aashach was given to political leaders and activists. Accounts Committee member Birodh Khatiwada had informed that a single person had received assistance of up to 250 thousand rupees in the name of medical treatment and had provided such assistance without any criteria and proof. The Accounts Committee had stated that the funds were provided to the cadres to listen to ghazals, entertain themselves, and even stay in the capital. Khatiwada had informed that the Home Minister used the funds given in the name of an anonymous person to support his close cadres.

Example of misuse of Aashch

It was seen that the Home used the Aashch funds to run the daily lives of senior party leaders, suppress street protests, and even inflame intra-party conflicts. The Accounts Committee had made public an example of Nathun Singh Danuwar taking 20 thousand rupees in 2005 when KP Sharma Oli was the Home Minister. Khatiwada had seen that the Congress government had given money to senior UML leaders during street protests, while the UML had given it to Congress leaders.

Khatiwada had said that he had received a list of senior Congress leaders who had taken Aashch. Khatiwada had said that the Home was being made 'grandfather' in the name of support, and that the state funds were being misused. During the UML government, the Accounts Committee had made public the example of Mukunda Shrestha receiving Rs 1 lakh, Trilochan Dhakal Rs 50,000 and Lalbabu Kadayat receiving Rs 75,000.

At that time, the Accounts Committee had accused the government of becoming irresponsible, saying that there was a growing trend of not addressing the irregularities pointed out by the Accounts Committee, not responding to letters correctly and not following instructions. Chairman Tripathi had said that ministries used vulgar language even when communicating. The Auditor General's report mentioned that government offices had not responded to 5,700 irregularities-related letters. Tripathi said that the government had not responded despite efforts to implement the act.