Public interest would be best served if the national auditor moves into a more collaborative rather than a confrontationist mindset
With India turning 74 recently, it is time to reflect on an institution that BR Ambedkar once described as the most powerful one in the country. One that would keep a close watch on all Government spending: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). All institutions have been created to serve and protect the rights and interests of citizens, thus their utility has necessarily to be viewed from the perspective of an aam aadmi (common man). We have thus to examine how far has the CAG addressed the daily concerns of the masses.
Each time a CAG is appointed, there is always much noise regarding the manner in which the executive selects the candidate and how such procedures are detrimental to the independence of the body. But does this alone account for the functioning of the Audit Department? The CAG makes big news when critical reports on implementation of certain schemes are published. The CAG’s report on acquisition of Rafale, allocation of coal blocks, auction of spectrum, conduct of the Commonwealth Games and so on brought it into the limelight. However, do such reports address the concerns of an ordinary citizen?
The Union and State Governments spend humongous amounts of money on welfare schemes to provide basic amenities to the underprivileged. It is in the form of free grain, housing, health, pension, free education, supply of textbooks and so on. People living Below the Poverty Line (BPL) are entitled to such facilities, thus it is a determining criteria for a host of benefits. The preparation of the BPL list is mired in controversy with complaints regarding inclusion of ineligible people and exclusion of eligible ones. Has the CAG ever taken up an audit of such an important activity?
One of the defining features of good governance is speedy grievance redressal. A robust system in which an individual lodges a complaint and an effective machinery that looks into it verifies its genuineness and provides a quick remedy. All Governments have created separate departments for addressing public grievances. It is often seen that complaints from the public are routinely disposed of with a standard answer “settled.” Has the CAG ever verified whether the complaint has been settled? Has he ever commented on the effectiveness or robustness of the grievance redressal mechanism?
The Right to Information (RTI) Act was introduced with great fanfare and was meant to empower citizens. Under the RTI, all departments were to proactively disclose information. A cursory examination of Government websites would show that they are hopelessly outdated and one cannot even find the telephone numbers of key officials. Has the CAG ever raised such issues?
Governments make a great noise regarding the ease of doing business. Every year, goaded by the World Bank, a report is released showing the great advances made in this sphere. Has the CAG ever examined how easy or difficult it is for an ordinary person to get a SC/ST certificate, a legal heir certificate, a mutation done for property on the death of the owner? Should the CAG not be ranking departments according to the ease of access?
Computerisation has been introduced in a big way in Government departments as it not only makes life easy for the citizens but brings in greater transparency. A huge amount of money has been invested in this exercise. Ideally a citizen should be able to access Government services like obtaining various kinds of certificates online. Has the CAG ever examined the effectiveness of computerisation on service delivery?
An institution becomes vibrant and retains the trust of citizens as long as the people can identify with it. Citizens would repose trust in it as a guardian of their rights and protector of their interests if they perceive it to be doing so. Do they have such a perception about the CAG?
The CAG’s office has to increasingly focus its attention on what is troubling our citizens. Public delivery of services should always be the focus area if the institution is to remain relevant.
There is yet another area which needs to be revisited. Over the years, the Audit Department has been labouring under the belief that accountability is best enforced through post-event fault finding. The approach has been to identify cases of malfeasance, infraction of established procedures and waste of public money. While these are important findings, does it provide any kind of assurance to citizens regarding systemic integrity? Should the CAG not be looking at systemic issues rather than wasting its resources in examining one-off transactions?
The other issue that needs to be debated is whether the CAG should blow his whistle post-event. Can we not move into a system wherein the institution renders advice and suggests a course of action before the event? Like a system of advance ruling? This would be in the larger public interest. What is the point of blowing the whistle after public money has been wasted? It is better that we prevent a wrongdoing rather than comment after the mischief has been done. The Indian CAG is perhaps the only organisation which looks at the functioning of all tiers of Government. The Union Government, State Governments, Union Territories, Urban Local Bodies and Panchayats. It is the only organisation, which looks at such varied departments of Government like atomic energy, space, defence, Public Sector Units and so on. It has over the years acquired rich and varied expertise. The talent pool available is unmatched. It should direct its energies for more purposeful activity. Public interest would be best served if it moves into a more collaborative rather than a confrontationist mindset.
I write this not to criticise the functioning of the CAG but to remind ourselves to step back and start looking at things from a different perspective. I would have succeeded in my efforts if it generates a healthy debate.
(The writer is a retired IA&AS officer who served as Director-General in the CAG of India)