Q1) Critically examine the utility of the social audit framework in bringing the governance process closer to the people.

(250 Words/15 Marks)

ANS

Social Audit refers to the examination of a government programme through active involvement of people, especially the intended beneficiaries. It involves comparing the official records with actual ground realities.

Social audit is decisive tool in governance which promotes transparency, accountability and people’s participation, making the government and its programmes responsive to people’s aspirations.

The system of social audits in India constitutes of following aspects:

1. Programmes like MGNREGA and NFSA provide legal basis for social audit. E.g., mandatory social audit of the progress and quality of work done under MGNREGA.
2. Comptroller & Auditor General has prescribed standards for conducting social audit.
3. In the Swaraj Abhiyan Case 2015, the Supreme Court held that social audit of government programmes should be done by independent societies. E.g., Society for Social Audit, Accountability and Transparency in Rajasthan.
4. Meghalaya has passed the Meghalaya Community Participation and Public Services Social Audit Act 2017 to provide legal backing to social audit. The Act mandates social audits across 21 schemes and 11 departments.
5. In Chhattisgarh, apart from MGNREGA, social audit team also collects complaints regarding other issues and hands it over to the Sarpanch.

The system of social audit in India suffers from certain challenges, as discussed below:

1. The implementing agencies induce delays in social audit such as failure to provide documents on time, not sending independent observers etc.
2. Due to lack of legal and institutional backing of national and state laws, the social audit institutions like social audit units (SAUs) and independent societies are underdeveloped and scant.
3. There is lack of adequate administrative and political will in institutionalizing social audit.
4. People’s participation suffers due to the lack of capacity building and training for conductingsocial audits. There is also lack of meaningful implications of social audits, creating disinterest among people.
5. There is a general lack of awareness about social audits.
6. Sporadic and ad hoc auditing by NGOs or CSOs fails to make social audit a people’s movement.

Following measures can be taken to make social audit more effective:

1. Reduce political interference by following strict and transparent process for selection of director and members of SAUs.
2. A resource hub should be constituted under the National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRD&PR) to provide assistance to Social Audit Units in training support, monitoring and evaluation.
3. As recommended by the 2nd ARC, social audits should be conducted more frequently and regularly (every six month) in every gram panchayat.
4. Social audits should be given legal backing by state governments through law, guidelines and rules, such as making social audits mandatory for all government programmes.
5. Digitalization of social audit process through video conferences, audio-visual information on gram Sabha portal etc. can increase participation.
6. In Jharkhand, the public hearings are heard by juries with PRI and CSO members. A cultural workshop for ‘Information, Education and Communication’ activities is conducted. Such efforts need to be replicated.

Social audit is an important tool for democratic country like India, providing for ‘people’s audit’ over acts and obligations of authorities. The system of social audits needs to be strengthened through capacity building and institutionalisation of standards and practices to make it an effective tool for democratic accountability.