(Online Course) Contemporary Issues for IAS Mains 2012: The Hindu – CAG [Six Answers To Clear Doubts & Misperceptions]

(Online Course) Contemporary Issues for IAS Mains 2012: The Hindu – CAG [Six Answers To Clear Doubts & Misperceptions]

(Online Course) Contemporary Issues for IAS Mains 2012: The Hindu – CAG [Six Answers To Clear Doubts & Misperceptions]

The Hindu

CAG: Six Answers To Clear Doubts & Misperceptions

The relentless campaign to discredit the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India (CAG) and diminish the institution is continuing. One
is not surprised; this has happened before, for instance in the Bofors case.
However, one is dismayed because the campaign, unwittingly aided by some
elements in themedia, seems to be succeeding to some extent. It seems urgently
necessary to dispel certain doubts and misperceptions before they gain ground
and cause more damage.

Dear Candidate,
This Material is from Our Study Kit of
Contemporary Issues for IAS
Mains 2012 .

These
materials are extremely useful for GS Mains, Public Administration,
Sociology, Political Science and Economics.

For Details Click Here

20% Discount for the Candidate who have qualified
2012 Preliminary Examination.

  1. Has the CAG been ‘summoned’ and ‘questioned’ as a witness
    by parliamentary committees? Summoning and questioning the CAG would be
    similar to summoning and questioning the Chief Justice of India or a judge
    of the Supreme Court. It cannot happen, and does not seem to have happened.
    As far as one knows, the CAG appears to have voluntarily offered to make
    power-point presentations to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), and
    the presentation seems to have been followed by the usual Q&A session. One
    is not privy to what happened at the JPC meeting. If in fact there was any
    aggressive or adversarial questioning, one can only deplore that as
    unfortunate; but there is no basis for any such supposition. In so far as
    the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is concerned, there is no need for it to
    “summon” the CAG or even request his presence, because the CAG is dutybound
    to assist the PAC and will in any case be present at its meetings, virtually
    as a part of the committee.

  2. Can the CAG’s numbers and inferences be questioned? The
    CAG, like all human institutions, is fallible; it can commit errors, just as
    the Supreme Court’s judgments can sometimes be wrong. The CAG’s reports can
    of course be questioned, just as the Supreme Court’s judgments can be
    criticised; but with the same care, respect and circumspection.

  3. Was it right on the part of the CAG to calculate a
    ‘presumptive loss’? If, in a given case, the decisions and/or procedures
    seem prima facie open to question, and there is no evidence of the financial
    implications having been taken into account, but at the same time it is not
    possible to calculate those implications precisely, there are two options.
    The first is to make a mere bland statement that the decision taken or the
    procedure followed is questionable; the second is to try and make a rough
    assessment of the financial implications or ‘presumptive loss’ through an
    indirect method. The first option will give Parliament and the general
    public no idea of the seriousness of the case; they will not be able to form
    a judgment on whether they are looking at a major or minor matter. The
    second option will alert them to the seriousness of the case. If ensuring
    accountability is the objective, the second seems the right course. It must
    of course be accompanied by a suitable caveat. That is what has been done in
    the 2G report.

4. Were there internal differences within the CAG’s
organisation? If so, was it right on the CAG’s part to overrule the DG of Audit?
The answer to this has to be threefold:

  • In any bureaucracy, the superior level approves or
    rejects or corrects proposals or drafts emanating from the subordinate
    levels; there is nothing unusual in this.

  • Under the Constitution, there is only one CAG of India;
    the constitutional status of the Directors-General, the Accountants-General,
    and the entire Audit Department derives from the constitutional status of
    the CAG. The CAG is entirely within his rights in overruling the DG (if that
    is what has been done), correcting his numbers, and giving him instructions.
    There is no sense in asking “who is right, the DG or the CAG?” The DG has no
    separate existence apart from being a part of the CAG’s organisation. The
    final decision is that of the CAG, and the responsibility for it rests with
    the CAG.

  • In all cases, an audit objection passes through several
    stages of examination, checking, review, etc, both internally within the
    Audit Department and externally in correspondence with the audited
    organisation. Not only does the ministry or department or other organisation
    under audit get several opportunities for explanations and corrections, but
    the proposed audit comment also travels up and down between the field office
    and the CAG’s headquarters several times, undergoing corrections, revisions,
    etc. Extraordinary care is taken to ensure the accuracy of facts and the
    defensibility of the arguments in an Audit Report. The point of this
    explanation is that the formulation and finalisation of the 2G report seems
    to have followed exactly the same course as is followed in all other cases.

Question : Did the Chairman of the PAC telephone or write to
the CAG’s office inquiring about the 2G report?

If so, was this not a case of pressure on his part? This is
an extraordinary charge. Considering the close working relationship between the
CAG and the PAC, there is hardly anything strange about telephonic or other
communication between the two. If the Chairman of the PAC inquires as to when
the audit report on a certain subject is likely to become available, can that be
considered an improper inquiry? As for “pressure,” it is grossly improper to
make any such allegation, but apart from that, what pressure can the Chairman of
the PAC in fact exert on the CAG? Is it being seriously suggested that the
Chairman of the PAC wanted a certain kind of report to be written, and that the
CAG, an independent constitutional functionary, was ready to produce a report as
instructed?


Go Back To Main Page

Leave a Reply