Dr S Saraswathi
It does not matter whether the Minister of State at the Prime Minister’s Office, V Narayanasamy, said or did not say, or whether what he said (or did not) conveys the truth or not regarding changing the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) into a multi-member body. What is important is reports on it have served a very useful purpose of raising a debate over this constitutional office, which has received already many comments from political leaders in the past and present.
This office is considered as one of the pillars of the Indian democracy, other than the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Ambedkar spoke of the CAG as the “most important officer in the Constitution of India” whose duties are “far more important than the duties of even the judiciary”. He wanted to give him the same kind of independence given to the judiciary.
The CAG is the head of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. He is to act as the guardian of public finances. He holds a constitutional office under Article 148 of the Constitution. However, the office of audit and accounts has a very long standing– of over 150 years as it started in 1860 by the British Government which faced many corruption cases. The professed object then was to bring about accountability and probity in public life.
The CAG is vested with some important functions which help the Legislature to control the Executive. In parliamentary democracies, financial control of the legislative body over the Executive represents the most crucial aspect of people’s control over a government. But, the popularly elected legislature as a body cannot be expected to have adequate knowledge and competence to check accounts though some individual members may have. And so, the office of the CAG is crucial to upholding the essence of parliamentary democracy.
The CAG is not a post of a generalist, but a specialist with knowledge and expertise in accounting and auditing to check accounts as well as to assess the merit of financial transactions of the government. His reports go to Parliament and are considered by its Public Accounts Committee, which is headed by a leader of the main Opposition Party.
Articles 148 to 151 of the Indian Constitution deal with the office of the CAG who is appointed by the President. He can be removed, as in the case of a judge of the Supreme Court, only by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of the House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. Such removal can only be on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The importance of this office was acknowledged generally and many of the early leaders of independent India were keen on listening to the advice of the CAG. President Radhakrishnan once advised the officers of audit and accounts that they “should not shrink from the truth for fear of offending men in high places”.
In the 1960s, controversies raged over the role of the CAG. The PAC was of the view then that the CAG besides ensuring conformity with rules and regulations in the matter of government expenditure must satisfy himself that the expenditure has been incurred with “faithfulness, wisdom, and economy”. The British practice was taken as the model. This has widened the responsibility of the CAG from being a mere accountant to acting as a financial adviser.
The powers and duties of the CAG have been laid down by an Act of Parliament passed in 1971. His job is to audit Government’s expenditure, see that the rules and orders pertaining to it have been followed, and ensure that those who sanction the expenditure have the power to do so.
Thus, his functions are broadly of two categories- accounting and auditing. He can also give directions regarding the form in which the accounts of the Union and State governments have to be kept under Article 150 of the Constitution.
The audit duties of the CAG are extensive and involve substantial powers. They are of two categories – regulatory audit and propriety audit. He sees that the appropriations made by Parliament are not exceeded without its proper sanction. He also points out instances of improper and wasteful expenditure.
The duties of the CAG have been evolving over the years. Performance auditing has become an important part of auditing which examines whether government programmes have achieved the desired objectives at the lowest cost and yielded the intended benefits.
This has become effective in making government functioning more transparent and accountable to Parliament and the people. Performance audit is an instrument to enforce economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in implementing government projects and programmes.
The CAG is not playing a negative role of an irresponsible critic. His role is a positive one to help government discharge its accountability to the people without prejudice and to the maximum advantage at minimum cost. In the opinion of Jawaharlal Nehru, the CAG is given a special position and it is open for him to criticize the government in his reports.
The job of the CAG does not give much scope for display of individual likes and dislikes. Accounting and auditing are done against prescribed rules and regulations and not on the basis of personal ideas. He scrutinizes facts and figures which do not change from person to person and not evidence of witnesses or reports of events which require cross-examination and verification. There is practically no room for difference of opinion in this task.
The Constitution, therefore, has not provided for a multi-member CAG whereas it has provided for a multi-member Election Commission. For, the work of superintendence, direction, and control of elections vested in the Election Commission involves some amount of investigation and judgement.
An amendment of the Constitution is required to expand the strength of this body. The constitutionality and the need for such an amendment is debatable. Any move by the Government for an amendment of the Constitution at this juncture, when it is facing a number of adverse reports will raise unnecessary political controversies. It may even become an election issue. Let us spare the constitutional office from being dragged into petty politics. INFA
Follow our WhatsApp channel