Cong. leader seeks action against six Chief Secretaries

1. At a Glance

• The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament summoned the Chief Secretaries of six States. None of them appeared, and the PAC chairperson has asked the Lok Sabha Speaker to act, calling the absence a breach of privilege [1].
• The hearing was about irregularities in pre-matric and post-matric scholarships for Scheduled Caste (SC) students. The post-matric scheme is a centrally sponsored scheme with a 60:40 Centre–State funding split [1][5].
• Three UPSC themes meet here:
• Parliamentary financial oversight (the PAC and CAG reports)
• Parliamentary privilege
• Cooperative federalism in centrally sponsored schemes, plus Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) delivery for SC welfare.

2. Why in the News

• K.C. Venugopal, PAC chairperson and senior Congress leader, wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in a letter dated 22 October 2026 [1].
• Chief Secretaries who did not appear: Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Odisha, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh [1].
• Summons were sent on 8 and 9 October 2026. They asked the Chief Secretaries and officials of the departments concerned to appear [1].
• No exemptions were granted, yet none of the six Chief Secretaries attended [1].
• All PAC members took note, and the committee held that the absence amounts to breach of privilege [1].
• The trigger was a PAC study visit to Jaipur in September 2026. It found:
• delays in onboarding States on the National Scholarship Portal (NSP)
• gaps in Centre–State coordination
• problems in disbursing funds [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• PAC – constitutional and procedural base: The PAC is constituted under Rules 308 and 309 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure [3].
• Inclusion of Rajya Sabha members: Associating Rajya Sabha members with the PAC was historically disputed. Lok Sabha members objected that it intruded on the Lok Sabha's exclusive financial rights [4].
• Post-Matric Scholarship for SCs (PMS-SC):
• 2020-21: The Union Cabinet approved a complete revamp, continuing the scheme from 2020-21 to 2025-26 [5].
• Funding moved from the old "committed liability" model to a fixed 60:40 Centre–State sharing pattern [5][6].
• With this change, the Centre's commitment rose by almost four times [5].

• Release of the Central share is linked to two conditions: the State/UT releasing its own share, and the State/UT submitting finally verified beneficiary data on the NSP [7][8].

• 2025-26: By 30 November 2025, ₹7,210.80 crore had been released to 61.71 lakh SC beneficiaries under PMS-SC [6].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
PAC strength	Up to 22 members: 15 from Lok Sabha and up to 7 from Rajya Sabha [2][3]
Election method	Elected every year by proportional representation through the single transferable vote [2][3]
Chairperson	Appointed by the Lok Sabha Speaker [2][3]
Ministers	Cannot be members [2][3]
Procedural base	Rules 308 and 309, Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure [3]
Mandate	Examines Appropriation Accounts, Finance Accounts and CAG reports [2][9]
Key scrutiny	Checks that money was spent within the scope of the demand granted by Parliament; examines excess spending, losses, nugatory expenditure and financial irregularities [2][3]
Privilege matters	Handled by the Committee of Privileges, not the PAC. In the Lok Sabha it has 15 members nominated by the Speaker [3]
Rajya Sabha privilege committee	Can recommend punishment for the offender [4]
Current PAC chair	K.C. Venugopal (Congress) [1][2]

PMS-SC item	Fact
Ministry	Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment [6]
Type	Centrally Sponsored Scheme [5]
Funding	60:40 (Centre:State); 90:10 for North-Eastern States, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh; 100:0 for UTs without a legislature [7][8]
Income ceiling	Parental income up to ₹2.5 lakh per annum [7]
Coverage	Whole course duration; compulsory non-refundable fees as fixed by State/UT fee committees; academic allowance; disability allowance [7]
Delivery	Applications through NSP or State portals; Central share paid by DBT to students' bank accounts [7][8]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The PAC's position is that ignoring summons without an exemption is a breach of privilege [1]. The PAC cannot punish anyone itself. Privilege questions go to the Committee of Privileges [3].
• Parliamentary privilege rests on Article 105, and the State-level equivalent on Article 194. (Standard constitutional text; no whitelisted source retrieved this session.)
• Open question: can a Union parliamentary committee compel State officers to appear? The PAC's link here is that the Central share of a centrally sponsored scheme is Union expenditure [5][7].

Federalism / Governance

• Release of the Central share depends on the State releasing its share and uploading verified data to the NSP [7][8]. Delays in onboarding States on the NSP are a structural bottleneck [1].
• The joint non-appearance of six States, governed by different parties, puts Centre–State accountability and legislative oversight of the executive under strain [1].

Social

• PMS-SC is the main route by which SC youth reach higher education. The 2020-21 revamp was meant to give them universal access [5].
• Its scale (61.71 lakh beneficiaries in 2025-26) means disbursement failures hit a very large vulnerable group [6].

Economic / Fiscal

• The fixed 60:40 pattern raised the Centre's commitment almost fourfold [5]. Disbursement irregularities therefore affect a sizeable amount of public money, which is why the PAC is examining it [2].

Administrative

• The weak points are Centre–State coordination gaps, portal onboarding delays and fund-flow problems [1].
• DBT is meant to cut leakages, but it depends on verified beneficiary data being uploaded on time [7][8].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 30 Nov 2025: ₹7,210.80 crore released to 61.71 lakh SC beneficiaries under PMS-SC for 2025-26 [6].
• 2025-26: The scheme's approved cycle (2020-21 to 2025-26) ends. Whether it has been formally extended was not confirmed in the sources retrieved [5].
• Sept 2026: PAC study visit to Jaipur flags NSP onboarding delays and disbursement problems [1].
• 8–9 Oct 2026: PAC summons sent to six States [1].
• 22 Oct 2026: Venugopal writes to Speaker Om Birla seeking action for breach of privilege [1].
• 25 Oct 2026: Reported in The Hindu, Chennai edition, page 12 [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The PAC has up to 22 members: 15 from Lok Sabha and up to 7 from Rajya Sabha [2][3].
• PAC members are elected annually by proportional representation through the single transferable vote [2][3].
• The Speaker of the Lok Sabha appoints the PAC chairperson [2][3].
• Ministers cannot be members of the PAC [2][3].
• The PAC is constituted under Rules 308 and 309 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure [3].
• The PAC examines Appropriation Accounts, Finance Accounts and CAG audit reports [2][9].
• The PAC examines losses, nugatory expenditure and financial irregularities [2][3].
• The Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges has 15 members nominated by the Speaker [3].
• PMS-SC funding is 60:40, or 90:10 for NE States, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh [7][8].
• PMS-SC income ceiling: ₹2.5 lakh per annum [7].
• The PMS-SC revamp in 2020-21 replaced the "committed liability" model with a fixed share [5].
• The Central share of PMS-SC is paid by DBT. Its release is tied to verified data on the National Scholarship Portal [7][8].
• The six States whose Chief Secretaries skipped the PAC summons were UP, Karnataka, Punjab, Odisha, Bihar and MP [1].

8. Can a Parliament Committee Order a State's Top Officer to Appear?

• This is the real legal fight, and nobody has settled it yet
• A Chief Secretary is the top civil servant of a State. They work under the State government, not the Union government.
• State ministers answer to their own State Assembly, not to Parliament (Article 164(2)).

• So the PAC is asking officers of another level of government to answer to it [1].

• The PAC's argument: it is following the money Parliament voted

• In PMS-SC, 60% of the money is the Centre's share [7][8].
• Parliament votes that money. The PAC's job is to check that it was spent within the scope of the demand Parliament granted [2][3].

• If the money passes through State treasuries, the PAC says it can follow it there.

• The gap in that argument

• The Union ministry that releases the money already answers to Parliament. Normally the PAC questions the Secretary of that ministry.
• Calling State officers directly goes one step further. The note's own sources show no rule that gives the PAC this power over State officers [2][3].
• This is why the question is open. It is not a clear case of officers defying a settled duty.

9. Why the States' Objection Deserves a Fair Hearing

• The strongest case for the six States
• 40% of PMS-SC money is the State's own money [7]. The State Assembly checks that part, not Parliament.
• If Union committees start calling Chief Secretaries, States could be called to Delhi for every centrally sponsored scheme. The State's own chain of accountability gets weaker.

• The six States are governed by different parties [1]. So this looks like the States standing up for themselves as an institution, not just party politics.

• Where the States are wrong

• Not even one of the six asked to be excused. No exemption was sought or granted [1].
• A State can object to a summons in writing, or send a junior officer. Saying nothing at all looks like avoiding scrutiny, not defending federalism.

• The Centre's spending on this scheme went up almost four times after 2020-21 [5]. Parliament has a real interest in knowing where that money goes.

• Fair verdict

• The States have a point about the principle. But they handled it badly.
• The right path was to object openly and ask for a ruling, not to stay away.

10. Why a Privilege Case Will Not Get Money to Students

• Privilege punishes. It does not fix how money moves
• The PAC can only claim a breach. The Speaker decides whether to send it to the Committee of Privileges [1][3].

• That committee can recommend punishment [4]. Nothing in that process uploads one student's data or releases one rupee.

• What actually holds the money back is a chain of conditions

• The Centre releases its 60% only after the State has released its own share and uploaded finally verified student data on the NSP (National Scholarship Portal) [7][8].
• If one link is slow, the whole payment stops. The PAC's Jaipur visit found exactly this: delays in getting States onto the NSP, and fund-flow problems [1].

• So a State's delay also freezes the Centre's share. The student bears the full cost.

• The stakes for each student

• ₹7,210.80 crore reached 61.71 lakh students by November 2025 [6]. That is roughly ₹11,700 per student on average.

• For a family earning under ₹2.5 lakh a year [7], a late payment can mean unpaid college fees in the middle of a course.

• A fight between Parliament and the States can make this worse

• The scheme's approved cycle ended in 2025-26. Whether it has been extended is not confirmed [5].
• If redesign talks happen while the Centre and States are fighting, it becomes harder to fix the NSP problems.

11. What Each Side Should Do Next

• The Speaker should first issue fresh summons, before sending a privilege case
• Privilege matters go to the Committee of Privileges, where the Speaker nominates the members [3].

• A second summons with a clear date gives the States a chance to appear or object in writing. A privilege case could follow only if they ignore it again.

• The PAC should also call the Union ministry

• The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment runs PMS-SC [6]. It releases the Central share and checks NSP data [7][8].

• Its Secretary clearly answers to Parliament. Through that Secretary, the PAC can get State-wise data on onboarding delays without the federal fight.

• The PAC should ask the CAG for a scheme audit

• CAG reports are the PAC's normal starting material [2][9].

• An audit would replace one study visit to Jaipur [1] with checked numbers from many States.

• The Ministry should not hold back the Central share for every delay

• At present, the Centre's 60% waits for the State's share and verified data [7][8].

• When the State has paid its share but data upload is late, the ministry could release part of the Central share for students already verified. Then one slow step does not stop every payment.

• States should publish their NSP onboarding status

• The delays found are in getting onto the portal [1]. A public, State-wise status report would show who is slow, without any summons.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: ₹7,210.80 crore released to 61.71 lakh SC students under PMS-SC by 30 Nov 2025 [6]
• Data: The 2020-21 revamp raised the Centre's commitment almost fourfold under fixed 60:40 sharing [5]
• Report/Committee: PAC study visit to Jaipur, September 2026. It found NSP onboarding delays and fund-flow problems [1]
• Law/Case: Article 105 (parliamentary privilege); Article 164(2) (State ministers answer to the State Assembly); Rules 308–309, Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure [3]
• Scheme: National Scholarship Portal + DBT. The Central share is released only after verified data is uploaded, so this is both the safeguard and the bottleneck [7][8]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Parliament – structure, functioning, powers and privileges; parliamentary committees; federal structure and Centre–State relations; welfare schemes for vulnerable sections.
• GS-III: Government budgeting; public expenditure accountability.
• GS-IV: Accountability of civil servants; respect for constitutional institutions.
• Possible question stems: 1. The Public Accounts Committee is described as the 'watchdog of public expenditure'. Assess its effectiveness in light of recent instances of non-cooperation by State executives. (15 marks) 2. Discuss the limits of parliamentary privilege when it is applied to officers of State governments in the implementation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes. (10 marks) 3. Fund-sharing conditionalities in Centrally Sponsored Schemes improve accountability but create delivery bottlenecks. Examine with reference to the Post-Matric Scholarship for SCs. (15 marks)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• CAG (Articles 148–151): CAG reports are the PAC's main input material.
• Estimates Committee and Committee on Public Undertakings: these are the other two financial committees, and questions often ask you to compare them with the PAC.
• Committee of Privileges and Articles 105/194: this is the body that decides privilege-breach claims.
• Centrally Sponsored Schemes rationalisation (core / core-of-core): explains the 60:40 and 90:10 patterns.
• National Scholarship Portal and DBT: the delivery channel behind the irregularities.
• All India Services (Article 312) and the Chief Secretary's role: the line of accountability between State officers, the State and the Union.
• Department-Related Standing Committees: a contrast with the PAC in mandate and how members are chosen.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Public Accounts Committee (Polity): The PAC is the committee that summoned the Chief Secretaries and is examining the scholarship irregularities.
• Breach of privilege (Polity): The PAC chair calls the Chief Secretaries' non-appearance a breach of privilege and asks the Speaker to act.
• Committee of Privileges (Polity): The PAC can only allege a breach. This committee examines such cases and recommends action.
• Centrally sponsored schemes (Economy): The SC post-matric scholarship is a shared-funding scheme (60:40), which explains the Centre's link to State officers.
• Comptroller and Auditor General (Polity): CAG audit reports are the main material the PAC examines when checking spending.
• Direct Benefit Transfer (Polity): Scholarship money reaches students' bank accounts by DBT, and delays in verified data hold up payment.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Who appoints the PAC chair: the Speaker, not the House by vote. The members are elected [2][3].
• Size: 22 members, with Lok Sabha 15 and Rajya Sabha 7, not 15 + 15. Rajya Sabha members are associated with the committee [2][4].
• Who rules on privilege: the PAC can only assert a breach. The decision lies with the Speaker or House through the Committee of Privileges [1][3].
• Funding ratios: 60:40 is the general pattern. The 90:10 pattern covers NE States plus Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh [7][8].
• Opposition chair: the convention that the PAC chair comes from the opposition is a convention, not a rule. (General knowledge; not retrieved this session.)