For it is Written

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is an important constitutional functionary. He is a facet of the entire principle of accountability, which is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution is founded on principles of high public morality and also on the principle of transparency and accountability to Parliament. Now, Parliament is a sovereign body. Its supremacy, in fact, enhances the measure of accountability. So, whenever there is an organ which is placed by the founding fathers inside the Constitution, it means that the person becomes account- able to the Constitution. The CAG is accountable to the Constitution and to the special statute under which the various functions of his office are delineated.

The CAG brings three important aspects into focus. First, the lack of adherence to established procedures is a part of his mandate. The CAG who does not do that is not discharging his duty properly. Second, he brings into focus the areas of accountability that need to be shown to Parliament. In other words, Parliament does not have a machinery by which it discovers the way in which the business of government has been done. There is no concurrent review of business done by the government. The third aspect is: does the CAG substitute his own policy perspective for that of the government? The answer is: no. The CAG does not judge government policies, but he looks at the material that is before him to see whether relevant factors have been taken into account and established governmental objectives have been adhered to in a decision.

Now, the grey area is in relation to performance audit. Does the CAG have the power to conduct a performance audit, which is like an audit of the functioning of the government? Traditionally, there has been a view that accounting and governmental procedural compliance is more the domain of the CAG. But, in my view, having regard to the ethos of the Constitution, the CAG is certainly entitled to take a view with reference to material that is furnished by the government. A government can disagree with the CAG’s report, but the role played by the CAG is valuable in itself. In fact, if there are findings in the CAG’s report, the process is not over; it goes to Parliament, to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), where it is considered.

The CAG is an adjunct functionary of Parliament. This is where, according to me, parliamentary consideration of the CAG’s report becomes very relevant. And there, it is the PAC that has a unique role to play in assessing the report, and the disclosures made in the report. All this has a direct bearing on the governance structure.

In a parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech inside Parliament is one of the most protected fundamental, constitutional rights in our country. It is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and it is important that Members of Parliament, irrespective of political affiliation, ask questions when various conclusions are brought to their attention by the CAG. They should be able to demand a statement about any irregularity that is apparent.

So, the CAG’S role is to enhance accountability. But if he is only treated as an adverse friend, as one whose comments need to be dealt with and buried, then the entire scheme of the Constitution, which contemplates a running wheel of accountability, will be stopped.

Whether the CAG’S conclusions are correct is one thing. The CAG is only a starting point. The real point is Parliament, and it is the performance of parliamentary institutions in dealing with the CAG report that is more important. A CAG report is aimed at moving the wheel of par- liamentary accountability. This is really the way in which the office of the CAG has to be seen. He is one of the most critical players in making relevant information available and analysing that information. He has to distance himself completely from government, and take an independent view.

Performance audit is a very intricate subject by itself. The incumbent CAG, to be fair, realises that he is setting a new trend, that he is embarking into new territory. Here, I think there must be broader consultation by the CAG on the performance audit. I would appeal to him, since this is a new dimension that has a direct bearing on accountability and governance, that he look at some international models of performance audit. He has looked at some international models – I can see that in his reports. But I think we need to have a more broad-based consultation.

The present CAG has taken into account the high moral stature that his office must discharge. We have had eminent CAGs. Many of them perhaps have not got publicity because they dealt with slightly different issues. But T.N. Chaturvedi, C.G. Somaiah and many others have upheld the value of this institution. This is one of the most valuable institutions and it should not be permitted to be decried.

Any criticism by a functionary under the Constitution must propel you to greater scrutiny, greater action and greater correction. That is the way you move forward in a democracy. Parliament cannot do everything by itself. In our system of republican government, executive governance is left to the executive. And the executive is accountable to Parliament. The CAG ensures that accountability by being able to analyse, oversee and review its performance.

The need for a lokpal will be much less is if there are internal standards and conventions of selfcorrection. I think this is a point that the government must consider. Can it not, as a matter of convention, thoroughly discuss CAG reports and respect PAC reports? Can it not use CAG reports as a building block for the future? These are important issues before the government.

As told to Sanjiv Shankaran