Though the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is quite often referred to as a post-mortem committee, it has a significant role, feel Hoshiar Singh and Pankaj Singh in ‘Indian Administration’ (www.pearsoned.co.in). The committee’s job of scrutinising accounts is a continuous process and it enjoys the prerogative of looking at the present as well as the future, they reason.
Urging that the very fact there is someone who will scrutinise what has been done is a great check on the slackness, or negligence of the executive, the authors argue that the examination, when properly carried out, leads to general efficiency of the administration, and also serves as a guide for both future estimates and policies.
The authors also remind that the committee has kept the executive accountable to Parliament, thereby lending an additional dimension to the nation’s fiscal policies and programmes. One learns that the committee has been able to bring to light certain cases where parliamentary authority on the administration of tax laws had been diluted by the executive fiat, and other cases of the government not carrying out the intentions of Parliament as expressed in laws. “It had also drawn attention to differing interpretations given by officers to tax provisions which had led to citizens being taxed differently under the same statute.”
Appalled that the PAC has been reduced to being a toothless watchdog, the authors aver that the fault lies at the door of the government. They fret that the politician in power and the acquiescent bureaucrat have together developed a vested interest for secrecy, shying away from accountability to Parliament and the people. “Governments have perfected the art of treating parliamentary committees as sinecures and their reports as documents to be consigned to the dust-gathering morgue of secretarial shelves. Ministers and bureaucrats are not inhibited by the thought that the PAC would be calling them in question for any profligacy on their part…”
Recommended study.
**
BookPeek.blogspot.com
