CAG and its role - Is he violating his oath if he is not looking into legislations/policies to uphold Consitution

1. CAG in India act just as an Auditor whereas he oaths "“I will uphold the Constitution and the laws" . Isn't it violating constitution by just doing mere auditing and not looking into legislation/policies to uphold Constitution ?

2. and looking over so many Scams in India shouldn't there be some institution which can probe scams before they happen instead checking flaws retrospectively when loss has been there?

3. Why nobody is held responsible in scams like coal-scam when law is equal for all?

CAG's role is restricted to accounts, as per the constitution of India.

Oath of upholding constitution is taken by all the constitutional authorities. But they have certain roles earmarked for themselves. They can't go beyond that.

Parliament is the rightful authority to deal with the legislation and policies.

Every constitutional authority has a rule carved out for it.

Sir but his oath is same as of Judges .. so shouldn't CAG also perform of role of reviewing policies?

Supreme Court has the specific role of interpreting constitutionality of policies etc.

Thus it is a specific domain given to the Supreme Court. And no other organisation can grab it just because they also have constitutional status.

sir can we say his this oath is wrong and it should be same as of ministers that he will act “in accordance with the Constitution instead upholding”?

No. The oath is to uphold the constitution as far as what it says to be the role of that particular institution.

If that is not the case there will be confusion as to the role of different constitutional authorities. Isn't it?

The role and of what is expected from CAG is very detailed out in the Constitution, not only his duties, but the values that he upholds is mentioned in the constitution. Unlike that of other executives- particularly the PM and cabinet.

None has to uphold the constitution beyond its own domain.

Institution to probe scans before they happen? In practical terms, what type of an institution you think of...

We have a plethora of institutions having the rule of oversight. Adding one more rung is not going to help.

CAG is afterall- an Auditor general (he is technically not a comptroller- his permission is not needed for Executives to appropriate money from Consolidated funds) so, his analyses of losses to exchequer are infact- in retrospect by definition.

What we actually need is honest bureaucracy to man the institutions, checks and balances, procedural clarity etc.

Transparency and adoption of technology can also help.

It is always the highest authority who is bestowed with the authority to execute it.

Who should take responsibility?

When we talk of corruption, we should keep the difference in liability between the political executive that is the minister and the administrative executive.

Policy decisions taken in public interest, without any ulterior motive cannot be questioned even if it results in loss.

Political bosses are accountable only for misdeeds. Not for policy failures.

They could be penalised only if out is proved that their actions were vitiated by other considerations.

The logic is this. At the time of taking the decision they did not have the advantage of a post facto analysis.

Who ever makes policy decision, it is always subject to uncertain situations.

You cannot completely foresee the consequences of p policy alternatives.

On the other hand the administrative head has the policy laid down to guide him. He need not look for alternatives.

Policy decisions can only be challenged on their constitutionality. Not on grounds like resulting in loss etc

Losses are part of the risky situation. The executive is only expected to follow what is called due diligence

Social issues have so many influencing factors. Some foreseeable. Some not.

if someone is made responsible for losses, if he takes decisions for the common good and some external factor results in losses then he is punished. it is one of the reasons for policy paralysis in recent times too.

The ministers operates on the principle of secrecy.. They take the oath of secrecy before entering office.. I mean where is the transparency in democracy.. Why this procedure.. Have a doubt on this sir. I m not sure that this will be related for the current discussion here!

That oath is only to ensure that whatever information he gets access to is not misused. This Secrecy is not about the decision making process. They can both coexist without any problem.

This oath that you are talking about is to maintain the Integrity of the process and information. Transparency is always there madam. The minister or the representative (of the people) is answerable to the public for all their actions

As a minister he may get access to say India's weapon project. He is not supposed to disclose it. That's all. That has nothing to do with transparency in decision making.

President Powers Red Intervention of SC in Presidents power of deciding on mercy pleas without any time limit boundation, is it constitutional?

No authority can fix a deadline for the president to execute his responsibility.

However, in death penalty cases, the affected can plead this as a reason for seeking mercy.

Can the SC Intervene?

That's what exactly I was saying. The court cannot set deadline for executing presidential powers.

Again here, he may get some relief from the court. But the authority of the president cannot be questioned.

Sir but finally commuting like in Bhullar case with reason of over mental illness and an inordinate delay by the government in deciding his mercy plea, isn't it breaching president's power?

Actually, it is a grey area.

It goes through the home ministry and the pm with the recommendation of the govt. They can be held responsible for the delay. After reaching the president, it becomes his prerogative