Question 11: Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament is an effective body to guarantee accountability in financial administration. Examine.
Introduction
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is one of the most crucial parliamentary committees in India. It plays a vital role in ensuring financial accountability and transparency in government functioning. As a watchdog of public finance, PAC scrutinizes public expenditure and evaluates whether it is in accordance with the Parliament’s decisions and the Constitution. It derives its authority from Article 151 of the Constitution and the rules of procedure of Parliament.
Role of PAC in Ensuring Financial Accountability
1. Scrutiny of CAG Reports
- The PAC examines the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.
- It checks whether public funds were spent as authorized by Parliament.
- It highlights irregularities, inefficiencies, and corruption, helping to improve fiscal discipline.
2. Ensuring Legislative Oversight
- PAC acts as an instrument of legislative control over the executive.
- It questions ministries and departments on lapses in financial management.
- This acts as a deterrent to misuse of public funds.
3. Corrective Recommendations
- The PAC provides recommendations to improve financial procedures, internal audit systems, and performance metrics of government departments.
- Even though its recommendations are not binding, they carry high moral and political weight.
4. Accountability Without Partisanship
- It is traditionally chaired by a member of the opposition party, ensuring non-partisan evaluation of government expenditure.
- This strengthens democratic checks and balances.
5. Regular Monitoring
- It reviews audit reports regularly, covering central ministries, PSUs, autonomous bodies, and schemes.
- This continuous monitoring ensures sustained accountability over time.
Achievements of PAC
- Exposed scams: PAC has played a key role in bringing issues like the 2G spectrum scam and coal block allocations into public scrutiny.
- Improved efficiency: Through its observations, PAC has pressurized departments to reduce wasteful expenditure.
- Enhanced CAG role: PAC recommendations have led to improved audit practices and reporting systems.
Limitations of PAC
1. No Enforcement Power
- The PAC can only recommend, it cannot enforce its decisions or penalize officials.
- Implementation depends on executive will.
2. Limited Time and Resources
- It examines only selected portions of voluminous CAG reports.
- Time constraints and limited expert support restrict its effectiveness.
3. Lack of Timely Action
- Government departments often delay action taken reports (ATRs).
- Some recommendations remain unimplemented for years.
4. Overburdened
- Increasing complexity of government spending makes it difficult for PAC to keep up with the volume of financial operations.
5. Political Bias
- Despite being chaired by an opposition member, political differences sometimes affect consensus-building.
Measures to Strengthen PAC
- Make recommendations time-bound and mandatory for the executive to respond.
- Expand technical support, including financial experts and auditors.
- Strengthen coordination with the CAG and internal audit mechanisms.
- Introduce digital monitoring dashboards for real-time tracking of PAC suggestions.
- Promote public awareness and transparency by making reports more accessible.
Comparison with Other Countries
- In UK, PAC enjoys greater enforcement ability, with stronger support systems.
- In Australia, PAC recommendations are legally required to be addressed by the executive.
- India can take inspiration from these models to enhance the effectiveness and authority of PAC.
Conclusion
The Public Accounts Committee remains a cornerstone of parliamentary financial oversight. While it has made significant contributions to enhancing accountability, its impact is limited by structural and procedural issues. Strengthening its institutional capacity and ensuring mandatory implementation of its recommendations will make PAC a more effective body in safeguarding public money and ensuring transparent governance.
✅ Summary in Telugu
పార్లమెంటు ప్రభుత్వ ఖాతాల కమిటీ (PAC) ప్రభుత్వ ఖర్చులపై పర్యవేక్షణచేసే ముఖ్యమైన సంస్థ. ఇది CAG నివేదికల పరిశీలన ద్వారా ప్రభుత్వ ఖర్చుల సరైనతను పరిశీలిస్తుంది. దీనివల్ల ప్రజాధనం దుర్వినియోగం తగ్గుతుంది.
PAC ముఖ్యమైన సూచనలు ఇస్తుంది కాని వాటికి అమలు చేయలేని పరిమితి ఉంటుంది. రాజకీయ ప్రభావం, సమయాభావం, మరియు నిపుణుల కొరత వంటి సమస్యలు PAC పనితీరును పరిమితం చేస్తున్నాయి. అయినా, దీన్ని బలోపేతం చేస్తే ప్రజాధన పరిరక్షణలో PAC పాత్ర మరింత బలపడుతుంది.
🧠 Thinking Process & Memory Tricks (Telugu + English)
TRICK: "PAC-CAGE-AR"
PAC ensures CAGE – CAG Reports, Accountability, Governance, Efficiency
AR = Action Reports (follow-up missing)
Telugu మనోజ్ఞమైన చిట్కా:
- PAC = "పబ్లిక్ అక్కౌంట్స్ కమిటీ"
- "పనిలో పారదర్శకత కోరే ప్రజల కంటికన్ను"
- CAG నిబంధనలపైనే దృష్టి, కానీ దానిపైనే ఆధారపడుతుంది – ఇది శిక్ష విధించలేను, గమనించగలదు మాత్రమే.
Deep
## The Public Accounts Committee (PAC): A Critical, Yet Constrained, Guardian of Financial Accountability
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) stands as a cornerstone of parliamentary oversight over government finances in Westminster-style democracies like India. Its primary mandate is to examine the accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament for expenditure by the government and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The assertion that it is an "effective body to guarantee accountability in financial administration" requires a nuanced examination, weighing its significant strengths against inherent limitations.
**I. The Pillars of PAC's Effectiveness**
1. **Constitutional and Statutory Backing:** Operating under Parliament's authority (Rules of Procedure), the PAC derives immense legitimacy. Its existence is mandated, not optional, making it a permanent fixture of financial oversight.
2. **Bipartisan Composition & Chairmanship:** Crucially, the PAC is traditionally chaired by a senior member of the Opposition. This, combined with proportional representation of all major parties, fosters a degree of non-partisanship essential for objective scrutiny. It reduces the temptation for the ruling party to whitewash government failures.
3. **Focus on the CAG's Findings:** The PAC's work revolves around the independent, expert audits conducted by the CAG. This provides the committee with a robust, evidence-based foundation for its inquiries. The CAG's reports (Audit Reports, Appropriation Accounts, Finance Accounts) highlight irregularities, wastage, inefficiency, and non-compliance with rules and procedures.
4. **Power to Summon and Question:** The PAC possesses the authority to summon ministers (though rare), senior civil servants (Accounting Officers), and officials from any ministry or department. This direct interrogation compels officials to explain and justify expenditure decisions and administrative actions documented in the CAG's reports. The prospect of being questioned before the PAC acts as a powerful deterrent against financial impropriety.
5. **Power to Demand Records:** The committee can demand any document, file, or record relevant to its examination. This ensures it has access to the necessary information to understand the context and details of transactions under scrutiny.
6. **Publicity and Reputational Impact:** PAC proceedings and reports are public documents. Adverse findings by the PAC carry significant reputational costs for the government and individual officials or ministries. The media attention generated amplifies accountability pressure.
7. **Recommendations for Systemic Improvement:** Beyond merely identifying faults, the PAC makes recommendations aimed at preventing recurrence. These can relate to tightening financial procedures, improving internal controls, enhancing administrative efficiency, and even suggesting legislative changes. Governments are required to submit Action Taken Reports (ATRs) on these recommendations, keeping the loop partially closed.
8. **Focus on Value for Money (VFM):** While traditionally focused on compliance and regularity, PACs increasingly scrutinize economy, efficiency, and effectiveness (the "3Es" of VFM auditing highlighted by the CAG). This moves beyond just "following the rules" to asking whether public money achieved the best possible outcomes.
9. **Ex-Post Scrutiny as a Learning Tool:** Examining expenditures *after* they occur allows the PAC to see the full picture – the outcomes, the consequences of decisions, and the effectiveness of implementation. This provides valuable lessons for future budgeting and administration.
**II. Limitations Constraining "Guaranteed" Accountability**
Despite its strengths, the PAC cannot single-handedly *guarantee* accountability due to several constraints:
1. **Post-Mortem Nature (Ex-Post Facto Scrutiny):** The PAC examines expenditures *after* the money has been spent and often years after the event (due to audit and reporting timelines). It cannot prevent financial misconduct or poor decisions in real-time. The accountability is retrospective.
2. **Lack of Enforcement Power:** The PAC's primary power is that of persuasion, publicity, and moral authority. It cannot impose penalties, enforce disciplinary action, or recover losses itself. Implementation of its recommendations relies entirely on the executive branch's willingness to act. Governments can delay, dilute, or even ignore ATRs and recommendations with limited immediate consequence.
3. **Dependence on CAG:** The PAC's effectiveness is heavily reliant on the quality, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of the CAG's audit. Limitations in the CAG's mandate, resources, or access affect the PAC's starting point.
4. **Resource and Time Constraints:** The PAC is a committee of busy MPs with limited time, support staff, and technical expertise compared to the vast machinery of government. It cannot examine every CAG finding in depth and must prioritize, potentially letting some issues slip.
5. **Political Dynamics:** While designed to be bipartisan, political considerations can sometimes influence proceedings. Ruling party members might be defensive; opposition members might seek undue political mileage. Consensus on sensitive issues can be difficult, potentially watering down reports.
6. **Focus on Technical Irregularities:** A significant portion of scrutiny can get bogged down in technical breaches of financial rules rather than substantive failures of policy or major corruption. While important for procedural integrity, this can sometimes overshadow larger questions of effectiveness or malintent.
7. **Limited Scope:** The PAC primarily examines expenditure *after* it's been authorized by Parliament via the Appropriation Act. It doesn't scrutinize the *formulation* of the budget or policy decisions *before* money is allocated – those remain the domain of the whole Parliament and subject ministries.
8. **No Direct Jurisdiction over Ministers:** While it can technically summon ministers, convention makes this rare. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility often means officials bear the brunt of questioning, potentially shielding political leadership from direct accountability for policy decisions that led to waste.
**III. PAC in the Ecosystem of Accountability**
It's crucial to view the PAC not in isolation, but as part of a larger accountability framework:
* **CAG:** Provides the independent audit foundation.
* **Departmental Standing Committees:** Scrutinize budgets and policies of specific ministries *before* and during expenditure.
* **Estimates Committee:** Examens whether funds are well-laid out for efficiency and economy (though less prominent than PAC).
* **Judiciary:** Adjudicates on legal violations.
* **Vigilance Bodies (CVC, CBI):** Investigate corruption.
* **Media and Civil Society:** Amplify findings and exert public pressure.
The PAC's unique role is the detailed, post-hoc parliamentary examination of actual expenditure against the backdrop of CAG's findings, leveraging parliamentary authority and bipartisan scrutiny.
**IV. Conclusion: Effective, but Not a Guarantee**
The Public Accounts Committee is undeniably a **critical and highly effective mechanism** for promoting financial accountability. Its bipartisan nature, reliance on independent audit, powers of summoning and inquiry, and ability to generate public pressure make it a formidable force. It plays an indispensable role in:
* Exposing waste, inefficiency, and irregularity.
* Compelling explanations from the bureaucracy.
* Highlighting systemic weaknesses in financial management.
* Recommending improvements to procedures and controls.
* Upholding the principle of parliamentary control over the public purse.
However, it **falls short of being a "guarantee"** of accountability. Its ex-post facto nature, lack of direct enforcement powers, dependence on executive follow-up, and susceptibility to broader political dynamics mean that while it significantly *enhances* accountability, it cannot *ensure* it alone. True financial accountability requires a multi-faceted approach where the PAC's findings are acted upon diligently by the executive, supported by a vigilant media and civil society, and complemented by other oversight institutions like the judiciary and vigilance bodies.
The PAC remains the most potent parliamentary instrument for financial scrutiny. Its effectiveness is maximized when there is strong political will (both within the committee and the government) to act on its recommendations, robust support from the CAG, and an engaged citizenry holding all actors responsible. It is a necessary and powerful pillar of financial accountability, but not a sufficient one by itself.
---
**తెలుగులో సారాంశం (Summary in Telugu):**
**పార్లమెంటు ప్రభుత్వ ఖాతాల కమిటీ (PAC) - ఆర్థిక జవాబుదారీతనానికి ఒక ముఖ్యమైన, కానీ పరిమితమైన సంస్థ**
**ప్రభావవంతమైన వైపులు:**
* **పార్లమెంటు అధీనంలో:** గట్టి చట్టపరమైన ఆధారం ఉంది.
* **అన్ని పార్టీల ప్రాతినిధ్యం:** PAC కు సాధారణంగా ప్రతిపక్ష నేతృత్వంలో ఉంటుంది. అన్ని పార్టీల సభ్యులతో కూడినది, పక్షపాతం తగ్గి నిష్పాక్షిక పరిశీలనకు అవకాశం.
* **CAG నివేదికల ఆధారం:** కంప్ట్రోలర్ అండ్ ఆడిటర్ జనరల్ (CAG) ఖచ్చితమైన ఆడిట్ నివేదికలను పరిశీలిస్తుంది. వృథా, అసామర్థ్యం, నియమాల ఉల్లంఘనలను బయటపెడుతుంది.
* **విచారణ అధికారం:** ఎగ్జిక్యూటివ్ అధికారులను, అధికారులను పిలిచి ప్రశ్నించగలదు. ఇది ఒక బలమైన భయపెట్టే సాధనం.
* **ప్రజా ఒత్తిడి:** PAC నివేదికలు, విచారణలు బహిరంగంగా జరుగుతాయి. ప్రతికూల నివేదికల వల్ల ప్రభుత్వం, అధికారులకు ఇమేజ్ నష్టం జరుగుతుంది.
* **ప్రణాళికల మెరుగుదల:** తప్పులు గుర్తించడంతో పాటు, వాటిని నివారించడానికి సిఫార్సులు చేస్తుంది. ప్రభుత్వం ఈ సిఫార్సులపై చర్య తీసుకున్నట్లు నివేదించాలి (Action Taken Report - ATR).
* **బడ్జెట్ ఫలితాల విశ్లేషణ:** ఖర్చు అనంతరం జరిగే పరిశీలన (Ex-Post Scrutiny) ఫలితాలను, నిర్ణయాల ప్రభావాన్ని అర్థం చేసుకోవడానికి, భవిష్యత్తు కోసం పాఠాలు నేర్చుకోవడానికి వీలు కల్పిస్తుంది.
**పరిమితులు (జవాబుదారీతనాన్ని "హామీ" ఇవ్వలేని కారణాలు):**
* **ఖర్చు తర్వాత పరిశీలన:** డబ్బు ఖర్చైన తర్వాతే (కొన్నిసార్లు సంవత్సరాల తర్వాత) పరిశీలన జరుగుతుంది. నిజ సమయంలో ఖర్చును ఆపలేదు.
* **అమలు చేసే అధికారం లేకపోవడం:** PACకు జరిమానా విధించే లేదా తిరిగి డబ్బు వసూలు చేసే అధికారం లేదు. దాని సిఫార్సుల అమలు పూర్తిగా ఎగ్జిక్యూటివ్ (ప్రభుత్వం) ఇష్టంపై ఆధారపడి ఉంటుంది. ప్రభుత్వం సిఫార్సులను ఆలస్యం చేయవచ్చు లేదా పూర్తిగా విస్మరించవచ్చు.
* **CAG పై ఆధారపడటం:** PAC యొక్క ప్రభావం CAG ఆడిట్ నాణ్యత, సమయానుకూలతపై గట్టిగా ఆధారపడి ఉంటుంది.
* **సమయం, వనరుల పరిమితి:** PAC సభ్యులు బిజీగా ఉండే పార్లమెంటు సభ్యులు. పరిమిత సిబ్బంది, సాంకేతిక నిపుణత్వం ఉంటాయి. అన్ని సమస్యలను లోతుగా పరిశీలించలేరు.
* **రాజకీయ ప్రభావం:** కొన్నిసార్లు రాజకీయ పరిగణనలు నిష్పాక్షికతను ప్రభావితం చేయవచ్చు. సున్నితమైన విషయాలపై ఏకాభిప్రాయం రాకపోవచ్చు.
* **మంత్రులపై పరిమిత నియంత్రణ:** మంత్రులను పిలవడానికి అధికారం ఉన్నప్పటికీ, అది చాలా అరుదు. నిర్వాహకులు (అధికారులు) ప్రశ్నించబడతారు, మంత్రులు తరచుగా నేపథ్యంలో ఉంటారు.
**తీర్మానం:**
PAC ఆర్థిక పారదర్శకత, జవాబుదారీతనం కోసం **అత్యంత ముఖ్యమైన మరియు ప్రభావవంతమైన పార్లమెంటరీ సాధనం**. దాని నిష్పాక్షికత, CAG ఆధారం, విచారణా అధికారాలు ప్రభుత్వ ఖర్చుపై గట్టి నియంత్రణను ఏర్పరుస్తాయి. అయితే, దాని పరిమితుల కారణంగా (ఖర్చు తర్వాత పరిశీలన, అమలు అధికారం లేకపోవడం), ఇది జవాబుదారీతనానికి **పూర్తిగా "హామీ" ఇచ్చే సంస్థ కాదు**. నిజమైన ఆర్థిక జవాబుదారీతనానికి PAC నివేదికలపై ప్రభుత్వం త్వరితగతిన చర్యలు తీసుకోవడం, జాగ్రత్తగా ఉన్న మీడియా, సివిల్ సొసైటీ, న్యాయవ్యవస్థ మరియు ఇతర నియంత్రణ సంస్థలతో కలిసి పనిచేయడం అవసరం. PAC ఒక అవసరమైన మరియు బలమైన స్తంభం, కానీ అది మాత్రమే సరిపోదు.
---
**My Thinking Process & Tricks to Remember:**
**Thinking Process (English):**
1. **Understanding the Core Question:** The key terms are "effective body" and "guarantee accountability." I need to assess PAC's effectiveness, not just describe it, and evaluate if it truly *guarantees* accountability.
2. **Defining Effectiveness:** Effectiveness means achieving intended goals. PAC's goal is parliamentary oversight of public spending via CAG reports to ensure probity, efficiency, and compliance. Does it achieve this reliably?
3. **Defining Accountability:** Accountability means holding officials responsible for their actions/decisions regarding public funds. Does PAC enforce consequences?
4. **Brainstorming Strengths:** I listed PAC's inherent advantages: bipartisan nature (Opposition Chair), CAG foundation, summoning powers, publicity, focus on systemic fixes, parliamentary backing.
5. **Brainstorming Limitations:** I focused on what prevents it from being a *guarantee*: lack of enforcement, post-facto nature, dependence on CAG/executive action, political constraints, no real-time prevention.
6. **Contextualizing:** PAC doesn't operate in a vacuum. I considered its place within the broader accountability ecosystem (CAG, other committees, judiciary, media).
7. **Balancing the Argument:** Avoided extremes. Concluded it's *highly effective* (critical pillar) but *not a guarantee* due to limitations. Effectiveness is contingent on other factors (political will, executive response).
8. **Structuring:** Organized logically: Intro -> Strengths -> Limitations -> Ecosystem -> Conclusion (nuanced answer).
9. **Evidence:** Recalled key PAC functions (examining Appropriation/Finance Accounts, CAG reports) and limitations (no penalty power, ex-post facto).
10. **Nuance:** Emphasized that "guarantee" is too strong, while "effective" is justified.
**Tricks to Remember (English & Telugu):**
1. **PAC's ROLE:**
* **English:** **P**ost-Expenditure **A**ccountability **C**ommittee (Focuses on *after* spending, holds to *account*, is a *committee*).
* **Telugu:** **పి**న్నటి ఖర్చు **ఎ**కౌంటబిలిటీ **సి**మిటీ (Pinnaṭi kharcu Ekaunṭabiliṭī Simiṭī).
2. **PAC's EFFECTIVENESS (Strengths):**
* **English:** **B**ipartisan, **A**udit-Based (CAG), **C**ompelling (Summons), **P**ublic. (**BACP**)
* **Telugu:** **బ**హుళపక్ష, **ఆ**డిట్ ఆధారిత (CAG), **బ**లవంతపరచే (పిలుపు), **ప**్రజా. (**బా ఆ బ ప** - Bā Ā Ba Pa).
3. **PAC's LIMITATIONS (Why not a Guarantee):**
* **English:** **N**o Enforcement, **O**ld News (Ex-Post Facto), **D**ependent (on CAG/Executive), **P**olitical, **S**low. (**NODPS** - Like it "nods" but doesn't act decisively).
* **Telugu:** **అ**మలు అధికారం **లేదు**, **ప**ూర్వ **ఖ**ర్చు పరిశీలన, **ఆ**ధారిత (CAG/ప్రభుత్వం), **రా**జకీయ, **ని**ధానం. (**అ ప ఖ ఆ రా ని** - A Pa Kha Ā Rā Ni).
4. **Key Takeaway Phrase:**
* **English:** **Critical Pillar, Not a Solo Guarantor.** (Highlights essential role but need for ecosystem).
* **Telugu:** **ముఖ్య స్తంభం, ఒంటరి హామీదారుడు కాదు.** (Mukhya stambhaṁ, oṇṭari hāmīdāruḍu kādu.)
5. **CAG-PAC Link:**
* **English:** **C**AG **F**inds, **P**AC **G**rinds. (CAG identifies issues, PAC investigates/question officials).
* **Telugu:** **CAG కనుగొంటుంది, PAC విచారిస్తుంది.** (CAG kanugoṇṭundi, PAC vicāristundi.)
No comments:
Post a Comment