Standard deviation

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Almost a year has gone by since the erstwhile government tabled bills in the Rajya Sabha to amend the Acts governing the functioning of the three professional accountancy institutes, ICAI, ICWAI and ICSI.

The protests at the time concerned the government using a genuinely felt need, for the institutes to discipline erring or negligent members, as an opportunity to extend its powers over their management and functioning.

Thus, the bills propose to make it mandatory on these institutes to obey government directives. Any disobedience could invite serious action, including dissolution of the governing councils.

They also propose to increase the number of government nominees on councils and make rules regarding the election and nomination of members and the terms of service of those serving on appellate tribunals.

The Naresh Chandra committee had recommended the establishment of independent quality review boards for each of the three institutions, but not by the government.

True to form, the latter tabled a bill which gave itself the power to do so, and a lot more beside. Even if the institutes could be said to have brought this upon themselves by not acting in time on the problem, the proposed remedy is not what the panel had in mind.

The matter is still with the parliamentary standing committee on finance. We trust it will carefully examine the government’s case for giving itself so much power.

There is a strong case for limiting, in general, the state’s propensity to keep adding to its already immense authority, unless there is an equivalent increase in accountability.

There ought to be a searching examination by the parliamentary panel of the government’s own case in this regard, contrasted with facts on how the situation is handled in other democracies. Ideally, the government should have come out with a position paper. But in its absence, the scrutiny process should provide one.