The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has raised significant concerns about the Centre's fiscal performance and transparency under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act. The audit reveals persistent challenges in debt management and fiscal disclosure practices despite some post-pandemic improvements.

Central Government Debt Trajectory

Central government debt as a percentage of GDP experienced significant volatility during the pandemic period, breaching established fiscal targets. The debt-to-GDP ratio peaked during the health crisis before showing gradual improvement in subsequent years.

In absolute terms, central government debt increased substantially in FY2022-23, rising by ₹17.48 lakh crore, representing a 12.61% increase. The composition of this debt growth shows internal debt contributing the largest portion at ₹16.12 lakh crore, while external debt rose by ₹0.90 lakh crore and public account liabilities increased by ₹0.13 lakh crore.

Fiscal Transparency and Disclosure Gaps

The CAG identified significant discrepancies in fiscal reporting that undermine transparency. The Medium Term Fiscal Policy Statement for 2024-25 failed to disclose actual central government debt figures for FY2022-23, creating information gaps for stakeholders.

The audit also revealed inconsistencies in extra-budgetary resources reporting. For the period FY2016-17 to FY2021-22, the Expenditure Profile 2024-25 showed extra-budgetary resources at ₹1,37,868.60 crore, compared to ₹1,39,287.30 crore reported in the previous year, reflecting an unexplained difference of ₹1,418.70 crore.

Interest Burden and Revenue Challenges

Interest payments continue to consume a substantial portion of government revenue receipts, indicating persistent fiscal stress. The interest burden showed fluctuation across the review period, with a concerning uptick in the most recent year.

A critical concern highlighted by the CAG involves tax revenue raised but not realised, which significantly impacts the government's borrowing requirements. In FY2021-22, this unrealised tax revenue stood at ₹15.83 lakh crore, escalating to ₹21.30 lakh crore in FY2022-23. This figure represents nearly 70% of gross tax collections, suggesting that improved recovery mechanisms could substantially reduce borrowing needs.

FRBM Compliance and General Government Debt

The audit revealed that general government debt levels remain significantly above FRBM Act targets. Under the Act, general government debt was to be capped at 60% of GDP by FY2024-25. However, the trajectory shows persistent elevation above this threshold.

Despite these challenges, the CAG noted that additional guarantees issued in FY2022-23 remained within prescribed limits at ₹0.61 lakh crore, or 0.23% of GDP, well below the FRBM limit of 0.5%.

The CAG concluded that while post-pandemic debt ratios have shown improvement, significant gaps in disclosure, inconsistent data reporting, and elevated absolute debt levels continue to undermine fiscal transparency and accountability. The audit emphasises the need for enhanced fiscal discipline and improved disclosure practices to restore confidence in India's fiscal management framework.

A comprehensive audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has exposed significant gaps between government claims and actual achievements in two flagship rural electrification schemes, raising serious questions about the credibility of 100% household electrification assertions.

The audit examined the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY) and the Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana (Saubhagya), revealing substantial shortcomings in implementation, monitoring, and achievement reporting.

Scheme Overview and Financial Outlay

The DDUGJY, launched in December 2014, aimed to strengthen rural electricity distribution networks and provide last-mile connectivity with a planned timeline of 24 to 30 months. The scheme was designed to electrify unelectrified households across rural India.

Saubhagya was launched in October 2017 specifically to provide electricity connections to all remaining unelectrified households, with a target completion date of March 2019.

Achievement Gaps and Overstated Claims

The audit revealed stark discrepancies between reported achievements and actual electrification numbers. Under Saubhagya, approximately 300 lakh unelectrified households were estimated to require coverage.

While the scheme dashboard claimed 100% achievement by March 2019, the CAG found that only 151.60 lakh households had actually been electrified by that date. By March 2022, this number increased to 174.36 lakh households, still representing only 66.34% of the estimated target.

Despite 25 states claiming full achievement between November 2018 and March 2019, seven states reported 19.10 lakh unelectrified households as of March 31, 2019. The audit noted that 11.64 lakh households remained unelectrified as late as March 30, 2021.

State-Level Discrepancies

Uttar Pradesh presented a particularly concerning case study of inflated achievement claims:

Implementation Issues and Financial Irregularities

The audit identified several systemic problems affecting scheme implementation:

Contractor-Related Issues:

• 16,728 households in two states received duplicate connections under both DDUGJY and Saubhagya
• Undue benefits extended to contractors
• Double payments for identical work totaling ₹2.24 crore
• Payments made without ensuring work completion

Network Strengthening Shortfalls: The Rural Electrification Corporation (REC), serving as the nodal agency for DDUGJY, substantially curtailed system strengthening costs. Against a demand of ₹44,821 crore from 19 states and two Union Territories, restrictions imposed ranged between 14.13% and 99.05%.

Project Delays and Timeline Overruns

The audit documented widespread delays across DDUGJY implementation:

Completion delays affected 555 projects across 27 states and three Union Territories, with 263 projects in 19 states and three UTs experiencing delays exceeding 24 months.

Persistent Rural Power Supply Issues

Despite the implementation of both schemes, the audit noted that problems of inadequate and unreliable power supply continue to persist in rural areas. The objective of DDUGJY was only partially achieved, as the allocated budget outlay proved insufficient to meet the scheme's comprehensive objectives.

The CAG report highlights systemic weaknesses in planning, execution, and monitoring of these flagship rural electrification programs, raising fundamental questions about the credibility of government electrification claims and the effectiveness of current implementation mechanisms.