By Shivanand Pandit
The performance of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has come under scrutiny. According to an RTI application, the audit regulator has stayed predominantly dormant over the last five years as the number of reports brought out by it has decreased severely. This has given rise to numerous concerns about the government’s fiscal responsibility, which is not coming under CAG’s scrutiny.
CAG reports pertaining to Union ministries and departments came down from 55 in 2015 to just 14 in 2020, a drop of almost 75 percent. According to the RTI reply, in the last few years, defence audit reports prepared and tabled in Parliament have also fallen. In 2017, eight reports were tabled in Parliament and in 2020, it was zero. Unfortunately, the story of railway audit reports was also the same. In 2017, five reports were tabled in Parliament and in 2020, it was only three.
CAG was formerly called the Constitutional Authority in India and founded in 1858 under Article 148 of the Constitution. It serves as a watchdog and reveals financial performance and compliance reports of the government of India. Its chief duty is to audit or inspect the expenditure of public money. CAG is expected to keep an eye on the financial responsibility of audited entities.
Its responsibilities include scrutinising the legitimacy, authenticity, regularity, propriety, economy, efficacy and effectiveness of the government’s financial management. It is a huge institution with more than 40,000 employees across India.
CAG had unearthed incidents of alleged fraud during the UPA government’s tenure. Various reports publicised by it on many issues such as the Bofors deal, 2G auction, coal block auction, Adarsh housing society and the 2010 Commonwealth Games damaged the image of Dr Manmohan Singh and brought down his government. The BJP, then in the Opposition, extensively utilised these reports to come to power in 2014. However, the radical fall in the number of CAG reports during the Modi government is even more stark. Although the number of CAG reports tabled in Parliament was the maximum in ten years in the initial years of the NDA government, these have fallen sharply.
Many have criticised this sharp decline. Former IAS officer Jawahar Sircar mentioned that CAG may not have completely fulfilled its main duty and the previous two or three CAGs were mild and not aggressive like Vinod Rai. He also stated that debatable issues like demonetisation and its influence on the Indian economy were not considered for audit by the CAG and that was strange.
Similarly, former Lok Sabha secretary general PDT Acharya said that CAG is yet to find out if money has been expended sensibly and legally by the government. The declining trend in this scrutiny shows that CAG has either picked up less number of transactions or did not find anything incorrect in the accounts. CG Somiah, who was the CAG from 1990 to 1996, mentioned in his memoir about how he reduced the delays in the finalisation of audit reports. He said that when he took over as the eighth CAG, many states had a history of late conclusion of the annual accounts and that was cured by the time he demitted office.
In 1949, when the Constitution was being structured, BR Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee, emphasised that he wanted CAG to be a totally independent institution. He was of the opinion that in the Constitution of India, the CAG is perhaps the most imperative official and accountable for verification of the outlays supported by Parliament. Ambedkar also mentioned that the institution of CAG had not been given the same independence as the judiciary, which is necessary if the official has to discharge his responsibilities promptly.
While traditionally, CAG has thrown light on governance issues and uncovered decisive information linked to corruption scams, lately, the autonomy of the institution has been in question. During the last few years, a systemic slowdown of CAG’s audits has been evident.
In March 2021, many audit reports for 2018-2019 and 2017-2018 are not visible in the public domain. According to CAG’s performance reports published by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, over 100 audit reports are prepared annually for proposing in state legislatures. But the performance has been lagging. Generally, the last pages of audit reports should carry the dates on which CAG signed them. However, these dates are not noticeable in the digital form of the reports. This should be stipulated.
The systematic decline in these reports is evident from the following numbers:
2011-2012: Out of 125 audit reports relating to this financial year, the date of submitting the reports in respective governments is available in only 121. Not less than 60 of these reports were concluded within 12 months and for the remaining, the available dates do not denote whether these were finalised within a year or not.
2012-2013: Out 120 audit reports during this year, for 116 the date of signing or submitting them in respective governments is available. Not less than 28 were concluded within 12 months and for the remaining, the available dates do not denote whether these were finalised within 12 months or not.
2013-2014: Out of 96 audit reports, for 75 the date of signing or submitting them in respective governments is available. Seventy two were concluded within 12 months and the remaining three were finalised within 15 months. For the rest, the available dates do not denote whether these were finalised within 12 months or not.
2014-2015: Out of 118 audit reports, 94 were concluded within 12 months and 15 were finalised within 15 months. The preparation of four reports took 15 to 18 months. For another five audit reports, the date on which the CAG signed them is not available. However, the dates of the reports’ submission disclosed that their conclusion did not take more than 18 months after the financial year ended. For the rest, the available dates do not denote whether these were finalised within 12 months or not.
2015-2016: Details of 131 audit reports are there on the website; 97 were finalised within 12 months and 15 were concluded within 12 to 15 months. The preparation of three reports took between 15 to 18 months. For remaining 16 audit reports, the dates on which they are prepared and submitted are not available.
2016-2017: Out of 127 audit reports, 59 were concluded within 12 months. The finalisation of 37 audit reports took 12 to 15 months; for 18 reports, the time taken was 15 to18 months and for the remaining 13 reports, the finalisation took 18 to 24 months.
2017-2018: Not a single report was prepared within 12 months. The preparation of 16 took 12 to 15 months and 24 were prepared between 15 and 18 months. It took 18 to 24 months to conclude 40 of the reports and the finalisation of 19 audit reports went beyond 24 months.
2018-2019: The details of only 32 audit reports are available and none of these were finalised within 12 or 15 months. Twenty-eight audit reports were concluded within 15 to 18 months and it took between 18 and 24 months for the finalisation of four of them.
In short, the productivity of CAG has fallen over the last few years. The availability of numerous reports in the public domain remains incomplete. What was accomplished by efficient CAGs has now been diluted. Citizens now need to keep a watchful eye on the functioning of this watchdog.
—The writer is a financial and tax specialist, author and public speaker based in Margao, Goa