Union Minister of State for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Bhagirath Choudhary has found himself at the centre of a political controversy after reports revealed that he received ₹99.6 lakh in government subsidy under a scheme administered by the very ministry in which he serves. While the minister has defended the subsidy as a legitimate benefit available to eligible farmers, Opposition parties have accused him of a conflict of interest and demanded accountability.

Subsidy sanctioned under ministry-run scheme

According to reports, Choudhary received ₹99,60,000 under a government scheme designed to promote commercial farming through the installation of polyhouses and adoption of modern agricultural practices.

The controversy stems from the fact that the subsidy was reportedly approved by a board where Choudhary serves as the ex-officio Vice-President in his role as Minister of State in the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.

The revelation has prompted questions over whether it is appropriate for a serving minister to receive financial benefits under a scheme overseen by his own ministry.

Minister says application dates back to 2018

Responding to the allegations, Choudhary asserted that there was nothing improper about receiving the subsidy. He clarified that he had applied for financial assistance in 2018, several years before joining the Union Cabinet in June 2024 after being elected as the Lok Sabha MP from Rajasthan’s Ajmer constituency.

The minister said he has been engaged in farming since childhood and availed the subsidy in the same manner as thousands of other farmers across the country.

“I am a farmer and have been involved in agriculture since my childhood. I have hidden nothing. Thousands of farmers install polyhouses and receive subsidies, and I did the same,” Choudhary said.

He added that details of the subsidy and loans taken for the project have been displayed publicly at his farm, which has also been inspected by local authorities.

According to Choudhary, the farm is also used to train farmers in modern agricultural techniques and natural farming practices.

Congress alleges conflict of interest

The Opposition has sharply criticised the minister over the matter. Congress leader Pawan Khera described the case as a serious conflict of interest, alleging that Choudhary was effectively “the applicant, the beneficiary and part of the authority responsible for the scheme.”

Khera accused the BJP of hypocrisy on corruption and questioned the ethical standards of allowing ministers to benefit from schemes implemented by their own ministries.

Former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot also attacked the government, calling the episode a “new model of corruption” and alleging that it reflected a growing pattern of conflicts of interest within the NDA government.

The Congress argued that public representatives should avoid situations that create even the perception of impropriety, particularly when public funds are involved.

IAS officer’s family also named

The controversy has expanded beyond the minister after reports claimed that senior IAS officer Naresh Pal Gangwar, currently serving as Secretary in the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, and his family members also received substantial subsidies under the same agriculture scheme.

According to the report, Gangwar, along with his mother, wife and son, received subsidies amounting to more than ₹1.16 crore over a period of five years.

The disclosures have further fuelled political debate over the implementation of subsidy programmes and whether stricter safeguards are needed to prevent potential conflicts of interest involving senior public officials.

Debate over transparency continues

The controversy has reignited discussions on transparency, accountability and ethics in the distribution of government subsidies. While Choudhary maintains that he complied with all eligibility requirements and applied long before becoming a Union minister, Opposition parties continue to question whether office bearers should receive benefits under schemes administered by ministries they oversee.

The issue is expected to remain politically significant as calls grow for greater transparency in government welfare programmes and stronger mechanisms to address perceived conflicts of interest.