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 anyreading 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
No comments:
Post a Comment