JOIN USCAG’s Reports tabled on August 17, 2012 in Parliament of India have generated a jansunwai (public hearing) across the country. It is heartening to find that papers tabled in legislatures, which are not meant only for the purposes of being examined by closeted committees or political parties, are being put to good use for civic engagement.
Wanton cronyism pointed out in these reports on allocation of coal blocks to industrial firms, committing excessive prime land for developing the Delhi airport and post-bid favours to companies and concessionaires is being further investigated by government agencies, political parties, civil society and the media. Democracy is coming alive.
The initial response of the coalition government was to try and shroud them in a mystique by referring to them as “draft reports” and question the mandate of CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General). An indomitable media pointed out the prerogative of CAG and the immense public good done by the tabling of the preceding report by CAG on allocation of licences for 2G spectrum. Cancellation of licences by the Supreme Court vindicated CAG’s concerns. The Bharatiya Janata Party, first asked for a statement in the House by the prime minister.
Realising that the reports of CAG stand referred to the PAC as soon as they are tabled, impressed by the water-tight nature of the reports and quick to scent the political weal against corruption in public life throughout the country, the party changed its strategy the very next day to demanding the resignation of the prime minister. The BJP stalled the House proceedings for a whole week.
Three reports tabled on August 17 do not question any policy and are clearly focussed on the impropriety and irregularities in not implementing the relevant policies. The unique constitutional position of CAG allows him to determine the scope and extent of his functions. While quoting the Constitution in the early years, the then Vice President Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan said in the Rajya Sabha that the officials of the CAG’s department have to serve the country and not just the government. Several statements by luminaries in the Lok Sabha and rulings by Speaker M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar have settled the issue as to whether honourable members of the House can or cannot question his conduct. They cannot, unless they bring a substantive motion against him.
Accepting the obligation to make a statement in the House on a matter of public importance, the prime minister first tried to read out a statement in the House, then simply tabled it and with a rare display of righteous indignation in front of the press, waiting outside, he said he took full responsibility and denied the allegations of impropriety in allocation of coal blocks raised vociferously by the BJP in the House.
Interestingly, he also wistfully recited a couplet to the effect that in the din of questioning, he remains self-assured about his honour. That was a poetic moment, both for a man tossed between pillar and post as well as for those watching him.
His legalistic statement contained practically nothing beyond what the officers of the department have said in the course of three exit conferences that CAG’s officers conducted to ensure they had verified the facts and explanations of the government before the report was finalised. The prime minister has only made two noteworthy points in his statement.
The first point contests CAG’s view that competitive bidding could have been introduced in 2006 by amending the administrative arrangements. In prime minister’s view, CAG has read the advice of the Law Ministry on this matter selectively. A simple reading of the relevant para in CAG’s report would make it amply clear that he has considered in detail the entire set of advices given by the Law Ministry and that he has arrived at a specific audit conclusion differing with the contention of the Coal Ministry which tried to intertwine the advice of the Law Ministry on two separate references. The Law Ministry had categorically mentioned on July 28, 2006 that the competitive route could be adopted through administrative arrangements. Amendment in the Act was advised by the Law Ministry in August 2006 on the request of the Coal Ministry that the process be given legal footing.
In contrast to the cut in his point that CAG’s judgment is flawed and arises out of selective reading of the advice of the Law Ministry, the thrust of his defence, is : “In retrospect, I would readily agree that in a world where things can be done by fiat, we could have done it faster. But, given the complexities of the process of consensus building in our parliamentary system, this is easier said than done“. The plea of building consensus is, of course, understandable in a parliamentary democracy, but not at such a huge cost to public interest. The makers of our Constitution, no doubt, placed a great premium on striving for consensus and advised amicability in the relations between the Union and the States.
The PM should not have taken full responsibility. To weigh the cut and thrust in his statement, the distinction between an irregularity and an impropriety needs to be borne in mind. An irregularity is committed when a law, rule or regulation or even convention is transgressed. An impropriety, in the context of government, refers to a failure to act according to standards and expectations of citizens from a holder of an office. The rampant irregularities committed by the screening committee between the first thought about competitive bidding and the final action, cited in CAG’s report and being exposed daily, appear like a hideous dream that could prove to be crucial in determining the impropriety in our prime minister’s conduct when the PAC examines the matter. The political circumstance of a restive polity may not allow for much time for the Committee to arrive at its recommendations.
(The writer is Former DG, CAG.)
RELATED STORIES