To enhance public perception, the institution of CAG should be headed by a multi-member body (Board of Audit or give it any name) comprising minimum three members just like the Election Commission of India. A three-member Board of Audit will act as its own internal control: members will balance and curb possible aberrations. It will go a long way in enforcing more rationality, more transparency and accountability within the organisation, including CAG office
Suppose, from financial year 2024-25 to financial year 2033-34, the number of audit reports for both States and Centre per year varies between 240 and 280. What these trends indicate? These indicate first, conventional, collective capability of the entire institution of CAG, given its manpower/other resources, assessed risk parameters, etc, to produce these many reports. Second, it would indicate the trend duly approved by more than one CAG during 2024-25 to 2033-34. This trend then acts as an important guide for any new CAG. It acts as a yardstick.
Further suppose a CAG has five-year tenure effective from January 1, 2034 to December 31, 2037. Well aware of his constitutional position, he puts aside all conventions and precedence dexterously established during earlier CAGs’ periods, forgets that audit reports are outcome of collective toil of the thousands of employees, and takes any one or a mixture of following three decisions:
Decision 1:
“Well, my tenure is for four years, I will observe the working of the departments for four years and since form, content and time of submission of audit reports is to be decided by me, I will sign reports for two years or four years as the case may be in one go. No press conferences please.”
Decision 2:
“For 2034-2035, audit findings put forth before me does not merit inclusion in the audit reports. These are weak and I don’t agree with the risk parameters placed before me. Hence please follow these at field office level; no need for inclusion in the audit reports. No press conferences please.”
Audit findings for succeeding years might meet the same fate.
Decision 3:
“I will produce, time to time basis stand-alone audit reports, backed by massive press conferences and media coverage. Please go ahead.”
These might look very far-fetched but are possibilities and very well feasible as per existing regulations. One variant of these decisions can involve inordinate delays in finalisation of audit reports because a CAG has to reach the level of his satisfaction before he approves reports. Towards that purpose, he seeks clarification by raising a number of observations/queries but reaching the threshold level still continues to be elusive. Any CAG can take these decisions and there may be no need to doubt these. But the most crucial issue is ownership of the final decision before he demits office. If any CAG, in his wisdom, arrives at decision 1 or 2 or 3 above or combination of different variants of these resulting in significantly delayed/reduced number of audit reports, he should leave a detailed reasoned note/order at his level justifying his decision so that posterity can judge and appreciate that justification in times to come. It will be discernable to anyone, including his successors and common citizens, the aam aadmi, if the justification asserts itself. A CAG enjoys the same status as a sitting judge of the honorable Supreme Court. In that light, reasoned orders on his part duly signed by him become all the more necessary as far as his constitutional duties regarding reports are concerned. Any CAG has to be accountable for his tenure vis-à-vis his constitutional duties, for, as already clarified, none else can substitute for him for these duties.
A few important related issues do emerge. If a CAG takes these decisions, obviously not expected number of reports or timely reports as compared to preceding years will be available to Parliament/State Legislatures and through these to Public Accounts Committee (PAC) or Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU). If much reduced number of reports/much delayed reports go to PAC/COPU, how they will ensure the tasks assigned to them in relation to audit reports; how they they act to ensure executive’s responsibility to the legislature? No reports or significantly reduced number of reports vis-à-vis earlier periods will have effect on the functioning of committees. What is the possible solution?
Public perception as regards this august institution’s fall is not healthy. To enhance public perception, the institution of CAG should be headed by a multi-member body (Board of Audit or give it any name) comprising minimum three members just like Election Commission of India. Once upon a time, there was one Chief Election Commissioner. Now it has three members. It is normally believed that in any system a multi-body board goes a long way to ensure blunting of activities involving what psychologists call, “Hypokinesia” or its reverse “Hyperkinesia”.
Let us look at one more reality. Anyone comparing activities, volumes, complexities and patterns of expenditure and receipts of Union/State Governments, say in 2019-2020 as compared to what these were, let us say, in 1950-51, may notice phenomenal and multiple increase in these at Union and States’ levels.
Increasing complexities in decision-making processes in Governments add yet another dimension. Similarly for the institution of CAG, a comparison between number of audit reports submitted to the President/Governors say in 1951 and again say in 2016 will intensify the justification for a three member Board of Audit in place of a single CAG. Increased workload in terms of audit reports at the level of CAG over the last seven decades, coupled with workload ensuing from his responsibility towards audit of various international organisations like UNO, FAO, WHO, IPU, etc, during last three decades certainly makes a strong case for a Board of Audit.
In November 2017, RB Sinha, a distinguished and experienced officer of IA&AS who superannuated as Director General, Audit, from CAG office, wrote articles titled “Challenges and Opportunities” in three parts published in this newspaper. These very thought provoking articles give deep insight into working of the office of CAG. In part III of the article, this was what he opined:
“The CAG should also be made more accountable by making it subject to external audit, periodical peer review and oversight by an independent audit committee. In an age of transparency and accountability, when the top court collegium has agreed to make public its minutes regarding appointments, promotion and transfer of Supreme/High Court Judges, it is not understood as to why should the CAG not publish its annual audit plan and then report their achievement and the reasons for failure of planned audits, if any… Complete trail of the processing draft reports/paragraphs should be maintained until the final report of the PAC on the relevant audit reports/paragraphs is issued.”
Equally importantly, Sinha penned in part II of the article,
“The work of audit of accounts of the Union and of States is actually done by the officers and staff of the IA&AD. However, no statutory recognition has been given to the work of IA&AD in India as against National Audit Office of the UK, Government Accountability office of the US, Australian National Audit Office of Australia.”
I echo RB Sinha’s views completely. His question “It is not understood as to why…?” is indeed a puzzling question. The answer lies in knocking at and dissecting the monolithic nature and character of the institution. The hour has come for the clock to strike.
The Indian Constitution is said to be dynamic in nature. Multiple amendments confirm it. A three-member Board of Audit will act as its own internal control: members will balance and curb possible aberrations. It will go a long way in enforcing more rationality, more transparency and accountability within the organisation, including CAG office. Robustness of this great organisation has got to be raised to further heights. Timely reports based on facts contained in files/documents of departments properly analysed with logically arrived at conclusions after considering the auditee’s views serve dual objective: these highlight positive achievements of various departments, and second, these suggest corrective measures for improvement in deficient areas of functioning. In short, timely audit reports contribute to good governance. Institution of CAG has to make sure that the nation is not deprived of such reports.
The perception ensuing from the print/online media reports can be salvaged by a down to earth dynamic CAG who takes his officers along. A lot depends on the present as well as future incumbents. Hopefully, the institution will see overall growth, including timely audit reports that apart from the stakeholders, people in general, having paid taxes, will tend to read and satisfy themselves if public funds are used efficiently and for intended purposes. Towards discharging that responsibility, the entire institution will be one with any CAG.
(KK Srivastava, an officer of Indian Audit & Accounts Service of 1983 batch, superannuated as Additional Deputy Comptroller & Auditor General in July 2020. He is a poet, writer and columnist. Author of three volumes of poetry, his poems have been translated into Hindi (Andhere Se Nikli Kavitayen-VANI PRAKASHAN (2017) and his book “Shadows of the Real” into Russian by veteran Russian poet Adolf Shvedchikov. His fourth book “Soliloquy of a Small-Town Uncivil Servant”, a literary non-fiction published in March 2019 by Rupa Publications, New Delhi, has been receving international acclaim in literary field. His fifth book: a book of essays is expected shortly. Views expressed here are his personal views)
