Examine the role of the Public Accounts Committee in ensuring executive accountability, with reference to persistent lapses in Railway passenger amenities despite repeated CAG audits.

Articles 148–151 vest the CAG with audit of Union expenditure, and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), working under Rule 308 of the Lok Sabha Rules, converts those findings into parliamentary accountability. The Railways amenities case reveals both the strength and the limits of this mechanism.

How the PAC enforces accountability

• It examines CAG performance audits, summoning Secretaries as accounting officers — the Railway Board gave oral evidence on CAG Report No. 31 of 2026 on amenities and sanitation at non-suburban stations [1].
• It converts technical audit into a public parliamentary record, and fixes deadlines: Railways was given one month to report corrective measures, with a follow-up hearing [5].
• Chairmanship by convention rests with the Opposition, giving scrutiny cross-party credibility.

Yet lapses persist

• Bio-toilets were found deficient or non-functional at 491 of 512 stations audited (≈96%); 188 lacked adequate drinking water and 97 lacked high-level platforms [1].
• On accessibility, help booths for Divyangjan were missing at 82% of stations, tactile blocks at 65% and priority seating at 96% — though Amrit Bharat Station Scheme guidelines mandate exactly these [4].
• The PAC has flagged the same deficiencies in four reports since 2007, each answered by an action-taken report [5].

Why scrutiny stops short of correction

• PAC recommendations are advisory; the action-taken report is paper compliance, unverified on the ground [5].
• Scrutiny is post-facto, with no penal power, while responsibility is diffused across Board, zone, division and contractor.
• Fiscal structure aggravates this: the operating ratio is 98.4% and the Depreciation Reserve Fund only ₹1,500 crore against ₹2.93 lakh crore capex, so maintenance loses to new works [2] — even as ₹1,100 crore built 103 showcase stations [3].

The PAC therefore diagnoses reliably but cannot compel. Institutionalising outcome-based verification — physical re-audit before an ATR is closed, and public follow-up hearings as now initiated — would align audit with delivery, realising the constitutional promise of legislative control over the purse.