Critically evaluate how large public projects in India are appraised and approved, with reference to the Public Investment Board and the CCEA.

Large central projects pass two filters. First, the Public Investment Board (PIB) in the Department of Expenditure checks them on technical and economic grounds. Then the PM-chaired Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) gives political approval [2]. The ₹3,230-crore Yuge Yugeen Bharat Museum, cleared in November 2026, shows that this system is strong on procedure but weak on transparency [1].

Ministry proposal → PIB appraisal → Ministry concurrence → CCEA approval → Phased execution

Fig: Approval chain for large central projects

Strengths of the system

• Graded scrutiny: the 2016 Department of Expenditure framework sends projects to the PIB or the Delegated Investment Board (DIB), and schemes to the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) or Standing Finance Committee (SFC), depending on the level of delegation [2].
• Checks in sequence: the PIB appraised the museum on 27 July 2026, the Ministry of Culture concurred, and the CCEA then approved it [1].
• Fiscal prudence: spending is phased over FY 2026-27 to 2030-31, which spreads the yearly burden [1].
• Collective ownership: decisions that depend on each other are cleared together. The Cabinet approved moving offices to Kartavya Bhavans in February 2026, which frees the North and South Blocks for the museum [5].

Weaknesses of the system

• Opacity: the government said the museum's budget depended on a feasibility study with France [3]. That study is not public, so Parliament and citizens cannot check how the cost was worked out.
• Scope drift: the museum's area grew from about 1.55 lakh sq m [4] to about 1.78 lakh sq m at approval [1]. The appraisal endorsed a moving target.
• Capital bias: appraisal focuses on buildings, not on the staff needed to run them. The CAG found national museums understaffed [6], and up to 29% of ASI posts were vacant [7].
• Weak opportunity-cost test: prestige claims such as the "largest display area in the world" [1] are seldom weighed against cheaper options, such as upgrading existing museums.
• Executive dominance: Parliament sees a project mainly through budget grants, after the CCEA has already decided.

Way forward

• Publish PIB appraisal notes and feasibility studies.
• Make life-cycle costing compulsory, covering staffing and maintenance, not just construction.
• Order a fresh appraisal whenever a project's scope changes significantly.
• Commission independent evaluations after completion.

Overall, the PIB–CCEA chain gives disciplined, layered scrutiny, but it lacks transparency and does not cost a project over its full life. Opening appraisals to public scrutiny would strengthen the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers under Article 75(3). It would also make sure that flagship projects like this museum deliver lasting value for public money.