Congress leader seeks action against Chief Secretaries of six States for skipping PAC hearing

The Public Accounts Committee had summoned the Chief Secretaries of six States to answer questions about irregularities in scholarships for Scheduled Caste students. The hearing examined how scholarship programmes were being managed and why problems had emerged. Their attendance mattered because the committee was seeking explanations directly from senior State officials.

The officials were from Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Odisha, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. None of the six Chief Secretaries appeared, although exemptions were not granted. Other officials did attend: Social Welfare Secretaries from Karnataka and Punjab, Bihar’s Education Secretary, and representatives of the Union Social Justice Ministry. Madhya Pradesh’s Education Secretary arrived, and the committee decided to call the State again.

PAC members recorded the absence and held that it amounted to a breach of privilege. K.C. Venugopal therefore wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking appropriate action. The letter shows that the committee may pursue the matter formally rather than treat the missed hearing as an ordinary scheduling problem.

The Public Accounts Committee is a parliamentary oversight body. It examines government spending and the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General, or CAG. Its purpose is to check whether money approved by Parliament was used lawfully, efficiently and for the intended purpose. This makes it an important accountability mechanism rather than an agency that directly runs schemes.

In this case, the PAC examined pre-matric and post-matric scholarships for Scheduled Caste students. During a September study visit to Jaipur, it found delays in onboarding States to the national scholarship portal, weak Centre-State coordination and problems disbursing funds. It also noted pending Action Taken Notes and a backlog in the Audit Para Monitoring System, which tracks follow-up on audit observations.

The committee then summoned senior officials to explain these issues. Their evidence could help identify where implementation failed and what corrective steps are needed. The article shows the PAC using hearings to connect audit concerns with administrative responsibility and public service delivery.

The alleged non-appearance involved six States and their Chief Secretaries. They were Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Odisha, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. These are the top administrative officials of the respective State governments, and the PAC wanted them to respond to scholarship-related irregularities.

The hearing also involved other senior officials. Social Welfare Secretaries from Karnataka and Punjab, Bihar’s Education Secretary, and Union Ministry representatives appeared and gave evidence. Madhya Pradesh’s Education Secretary arrived as scheduled, after which the committee decided to call the State again. Venugopal separately asked the Speaker to act against the Social Welfare Secretaries of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Odisha.

Thus, the central issue concerned six absent Chief Secretaries, but the committee also flagged three Social Welfare Secretaries for action. The distinction matters because the summons and the requested responses covered different levels of State administration. The PAC’s letter sought formal action over these officials’ failure to attend or, in some cases, their departments’ non-appearance.

The PAC examined the scholarship schemes because its study visit revealed possible failures in delivering support to Scheduled Caste students. The programmes covered both pre-matric and post-matric scholarships. Problems in these schemes matter because administrative delays can prevent eligible students from receiving financial assistance when they need it.

During a September study visit to Jaipur, the panel identified three main concerns. States were delayed in joining the national scholarship portal. Coordination between the Union and State governments was inadequate. There were also problems in disbursing funds. These findings prompted the committee to seek explanations from the officials responsible for administration and implementation.

The PAC also noted pending Action Taken Notes and a heavy backlog in the Audit Para Monitoring System. That system tracks how Ministries respond to audit findings involving irregularities, procedural violations, financial lapses and inefficient use of public funds. The hearing was therefore intended to clarify responsibility, improve follow-up and reduce delays affecting scholarship beneficiaries.

Parliamentary privilege protects the authority and functioning of Parliament and its committees. In general terms, a breach occurs when conduct obstructs parliamentary work or undermines a committee’s ability to obtain information. This explanation uses established parliamentary practice; the article specifically reports that the PAC regarded the absences as a breach of privilege.

Here, the PAC had sent communications on October 8 and 9, asking the six Chief Secretaries and relevant departmental officials to appear. None of the Chief Secretaries attended, and the article says exemptions were not granted. Because the committee was examining scholarship irregularities, their absence meant it could not hear directly from the senior officials it had summoned.

All PAC members took note of the matter. Venugopal’s letter said the committee held that the absence amounted to a breach and asked the Speaker to take appropriate action. The classification signals that the issue may move beyond routine non-attendance into a formal parliamentary process, subject to the Speaker’s consideration.

When officials disregard a parliamentary committee summons, the Speaker may assess the committee’s complaint and decide what procedure should follow. Possible steps can include seeking an explanation, referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges, or placing it before the House. These are established parliamentary mechanisms; the article itself records only Venugopal’s request for appropriate action.

In this case, the PAC documented that six Chief Secretaries failed to attend despite being summoned and without exemptions. Its members treated the absence as a breach of privilege. Venugopal wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and also requested action against the Social Welfare Secretaries of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Odisha.

The immediate next step depends on the Speaker’s decision. The officials or State governments could be asked to explain the non-appearance. If the matter proceeds formally, Parliament could examine whether the summons was ignored without sufficient reason and decide an appropriate response. The article does not state that any final penalty has yet been imposed.

In India’s federal system, welfare delivery can involve both the Union and State governments. The Union may design national programmes, set rules, provide funding or oversight, while States and their departments often identify beneficiaries and carry out implementation. The exact division varies by scheme. This general explanation uses established knowledge; the article highlights the practical need for coordination without setting out every legal responsibility.

The scholarship case shows that shared responsibility can create administrative dependencies. The PAC found delays in onboarding States to the national scholarship portal, gaps in Centre-State coordination and problems disbursing funds. Representatives of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment appeared, while State Social Welfare and Education officials also gave evidence.

Because several authorities are involved, a delay at one level can affect students receiving assistance. The PAC’s hearing sought explanations from senior officials across those levels. Its concerns about pending Action Taken Notes and audit follow-up also show that responsibility does not end when a scheme is announced. Continued monitoring is needed to correct implementation failures.