Don’t attack CAG for performing its constitutional duty

Some from the government, “the executive”, have made a not-so credible attempt at portraying the Supreme Court and the CAG – the two institutions that have spotlighted the recent scams within the government – as having tread on the turf of the executive. The argument is that there is enough supervision of the executive by Parliament through question hours and debates. And on the face of it, this seems like a reasonable proposition.

Parliament’s supervision of the government or executive is very weak. The executive can get away with the malfeasance big and small — with very little opposition from Parliament — because of the very nature of Parliamentary democracy which gives the executive the majority in Parliament, and hence, the ability to ignore any opposition. Further, any effort of check by the opposition, however ineffective, can only occur with the help of reports of constitutional authorities like the CAG. To imply the CAG must do only accounting is as ridiculous as suggesting that a statutory auditor should restrict itself to just accounting the numbers. The last auditor that did that was the Satyam Auditors who now find themselves in jail accused of aiding and abetting the fraud.

The fundamental truth of our constitutional democracy is that – and this is obvious from any  reading of the Constitution and speeches in the Constituent Assembly debates — our Constitution does not provide unfettered power of decision making to any institution, including the executive, and relies on a system of checks and balances. The CAG and the judiciary are part of that system of checks and balances. To quote Dr Ambedkar, “I am of the opinion that this office (CAG) is probably the most important officer in the Constitution of India.”

The argument of a constitutional crisis caused by accountability demanded by the CAG and the SC from a council of ministers is an obvious smokescreen. It is important to remember that our Constitution does not recognise the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive and the legislature as in the US. In order that ministers are responsible to Parliament and to the sovereign people, the ministers are required, first and foremost, to be members of the legislature. They sit as equals with other members to debate policies and pass laws.

The arguments like whether or not a particular natural resource is to be auctioned is not for the CAG to decide. Is it anybody’s case that the CAG should decide policy? No. The right question would be to ask whether the CAG can evaluate the consequences of a government policy. Yes, he can and should, as he has been doing since the PAC of the second Lok Sabha requested him to undertake performance audit, and especially when the systems-based audit of revenues began in the 1960s which, on the recommendations of the PAC, helped the ministry of finance to move amendments to Acts, rules and procedures. 

The arguments do not in any way affect the CAG who has legitimately pointed out that it was the council of ministers that decided the auction route for allocation of coal blocks was the best idea, and then strangely didn’t implement it, even after the birds had flown with the booty. The CAG rightly has alerted the President and the House about rampant irregularities in allocation and the impropriety of the executive in presiding over these irregularities. What can be wrong or questionable about this?

At a time when the prime minister himself characterizes as difficult financial times with our fiscal deficit threatening to downgrade our economy – for a minister to say “governments are not in the business of maximising revenues. Instead of filling its own pockets, it is obliged, in a welfare state, to fill the pockets of the aam admi” – especially when actions of the welfare state that are being questioned are making crores of rupees of profits for a few crony capitalists and friends of the government.

As Raghuram Rajan, the new chief economic advisor to the government, has himself written – Almost all of the billionaires created in India have created their wealth ‘because of their proximity to politics and politicians’. At the same time, asking the aam admi to bear the burden of this weakening financial situation of the country, defies any logic – political or otherwise.

These scams of recent times must make for change in the way we make our governments function — despite all the efforts to sweep it under the carpet. If it wasn’t for the CAG and the Supreme Court, these cases would never have seen the light of the day and would have disappeared from the public discourse and memory, as another senior minister in the government has predicted.

The writer a member of Rajya Sabha