In an earlier meeting of the PAC, this move was largely opposed by BJP MPs, including Nishikant Dubey. It is now learnt that other MPs of the ruling NDA will also oppose it
Another BJP-Opposition clash is likely brewing over the summoning of SEBI representatives at the meeting in Parliament of the vital public accounts committee on October 24. In an earlier meeting, when chairperson KC Venugopal expressed this intent, it was largely opposed by BJP MPs, including Nishikant Dubey. It is now learnt that other MPs of the ruling National Democratic Alliance will also oppose this move.
According to sources, Congress MPs in the public accounts committee (PAC) had hinted that they will summon Madhabi Puri Buch, chief of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), to question her – in particular on the functioning of the regulatory body – over controversies surrounding her appointment.
In a meeting of the panel held on September 11, BJP MPs were supported by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) GC Murmu, who was also present before the committee. It was cited to the chair that such a summons can only happen if there is a discrepancy that has come to the fore in the CAG report or in case permission was granted by the central government.
Venugopal, however, went ahead with the agenda listed for the meeting later this month. It reads, “Briefing by audit followed by oral evidence of the representatives of the ministry of finance (department of economic affairs) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on the subject, ‘Performance Review of Regulatory Bodies established by Act of Parliament’.”
Sources said Buch may not attend this meeting, and that other SEBI representatives are also unlikely to answer or respond to any questions beyond what the brief of the agenda mandates. If the Lok Sabha speaker takes cognisance of the letter of the BJP MP, then the regulatory body need not appear before the panel, as that would be a violation of rules.
In fact, Dubey had written to the speaker last month, expressing his reservation about the summons. In his letter, he had alleged that the Congress was doing so to deliberately destabilise the country’s financial structure.
He also spoke about the rules of business in the Lok Sabha, which mandate that the PAC should list exactly what subjects it can scrutinise. He said Venugopal was misusing his position as the chairperson at the behest of his party leadership.
Dubey further cited the violation of the functions of the committee as per Rule 308(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, which state that examination of accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament for the expenditure of the Government of India, the annual finance accounts of the Government and such other accounts laid before the House as the committee may think fit.
The PAC has been mandated to examine the “appropriation of accounts of the Government of India and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India”.
What does the rule state?
Rule 308 (1) states: “The functions of the Committee, as enshrined in Rule 308(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, include examination of accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament for the expenditure of the Government of India, the annual finance accounts of the Government and such other accounts laid before the House as the Committee may think fit. In scrutinising the Appropriation Accounts of the Government of India and the Report of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India.”
It states: “An important function of the Committee is to ascertain that money granted by Parliament has been spent by Government ‘within the scope of the demand’. The implications of this phrase are that (i) money recorded as spent against the grant must not be more than the amount granted, (ii) the expenditure brought to account against a particular grant must be of such a nature as to warrant its record against the grant and against no other, and iii) the grants should be spent on purposes which are set out in the detailed demand and they cannot be spent on ‘any new service not contemplated in the demand’.”
“The functions of the Committee extend ‘beyond the formality of expenditure to its wisdom, faithfulness and economy’. The Committee thus examines cases involving losses, nugatory expenditure and financial irregularities. When any case of proved negligence resulting in loss or extravagance is brought to the notice of the Committee, it calls upon the Ministry/Department concerned to explain what action, disciplinary or otherwise, it had taken to prevent a recurrence. In such a case it can also record its opinion in the form of disapproval or pass strictures against the extravagance or lack of proper control by the Ministry or Department concerned,” it states.
“Another important function of the Committee is the discussion on points of financial discipline and principle. The detailed examination of questions involving principle and system is a leading and recognized function of the Committee. The Committee is not concerned with questions of policy in the broad sense. As a rule, it expresses no opinion on points of general policy, but it is within its jurisdiction to point out whether there has been extravagance or waste in carrying out that policy,” it adds.
What did Dubey say in his letter?
An excerpt of Dubey’s letter reads: “With a view to attaining their ulterior motives, first of all, these ‘tool kit’ operators draft reports on the basis of unverified and concocted data/self-serving anecdotes and get it published in various foreign media/newspapers. In these reports, the ‘tool kit’ organisers insinuate high-ranking functionaries of some important Indian entities with the intention to defame the Government and create sensation in the country. Soon thereafter, the ‘India Chapter’ of this ‘tool kit’ becomes active and uses their position, as is presently being used by Mr KC Venugopal in the capacity of chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to further defame the Government and damage the financial prospects of our economy. This time also, unverified allegations have been levelled against the SEBI Chief by a foreign entity, viz, Hindenburg Research, which is notorious for targeting business houses, important functionaries and financial institutions of the country. It is apathy on the part of senior politicians like Mr KC Venugopal to indulge in such deplorable acts by misusing their constitutional position and blatantly violating the established Rules of Procedure, governing the Parliament.” (sic)
