CWG Saga: Who Robbed the Nation of Fairness, Transparency, and Trust
CAG Building in New Delhi and Suresh Kalmadi (Image credit LinkedIn)
Acquittals Don’t Erase the Smoke: Revisiting the CAG’s Role in Exposing the Commonwealth, 2G, and Coal Scams
By Sesh Kumar Pulipaka
New Delhi, May 2, 2025 — In the shrill world of public discourse, where today’s scandal is tomorrow’s footnote, a curious narrative has started gaining traction: that the acquittals of accused persons in the Commonwealth Games, 2G spectrum, and coal block allocation scams somehow prove that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India’s reports from 2010 to 2012 were overblown, sensational, or worse—entirely misplaced.
That narrative needs not just a second look, but a hard shove into reality. Let’s not forget what was at stake. The CAG reports did not claim to be charge-sheets; they were not instruments of prosecution. They were audits—constitutional audits—raising red flags on systemic loopholes, opaque decision-making, and massive potential losses to the public exchequer. They were about the breach of public trust, not the burden of criminal proof.
To suggest that the acquittal of individuals means the audit findings were unfounded is to wilfully confuse the difference between accountability and criminal culpability.
Take the 2G spectrum allocation saga. In 2010, the CAG dropped a bombshell: an estimated presumptive loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the exchequer due to a flawed and non-transparent first-come-first-served policy.
That number jolted the nation—not because of its size alone, but because it highlighted how public resources were being handed over like party favours. In 2017, a trial court acquitted all 17 accused, citing lack of prosecutable evidence.
But does this verdict erase the fact that the Supreme Court had already cancelled 122 telecom licenses in 2012, calling the allocation process “arbitrary and unconstitutional”?
Are we to ignore the policy vacuum, regulatory capture, and opaque decision-making just because the evidence didn’t clear the criminal bar?
Then came the coal block allocations. In 2012, the CAG estimated losses of Rs 1.86 lakh crore from discretionary allotments of coal blocks without competitive bidding. Critics scoffed at the number, but in 2014 the Supreme Court echoed the same spirit of concern—it cancelled 214 coal block allocations, effectively confirming the CAG’s core finding: that the process was capricious and tainted by patronage.
Fast forward to 2025, and yes, some bureaucrats like H.C. Gupta have been discharged. But does that erase the institutional malaise the CAG unearthed? Are we to ignore that the entire allocation mechanism was dismantled by the apex court based on constitutional principles?
And the Commonwealth Games mess? It may have faded from headlines, but it was a textbook case of inflated costs, rigged tenders, and shoddy execution. Multiple FIRs were filed, and for years the public was served a daily diet of embarrassment.
In April 2025, a Delhi court accepted the Enforcement Directorate’s closure report, letting off Suresh Kalmadi and others. But what remains untouched is the CAG’s detailed analysis of how an international sporting opportunity became a carnival of cost overruns and contract manipulation.
To suggest that the absence of criminal convictions means the CAG erred is to hold audit to an impossible standard. Audit is about process, transparency, and public interest. Criminal law is about intent, evidence, and individual culpability. The two operate in different spheres.
The CAG’s job is to detect red flags—potential or actual loss, policy distortion, or irregularities in procedure. Prosecutors must build their case around motive, conspiracy, and hard evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
The failure of prosecution or dilution of cases over time—often due to shoddy investigations, missing files, hostile witnesses, or legal bottlenecks—should not retroactively delegitimize what was, at its core, a powerful exercise in democratic oversight.
CAG’s audit is unfortunately confused with investigation of criminality and unearthing incontrovertible proof of corruption in its reports, even by educated persons and media.
This is not auditing but criminal investigation for which we have empowered, specialised, technically and professionally equipped agencies to pursue the issues of criminality based or drawn from CAG’s reports.
The latter have necessarily to go to Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which is literally and legally the arbiter of the findings of CAG. PAC had examined the CAG report on Commonwealth Games and accepted CAG’s findings of financial misdemeanours in its report. Not many would know that there is no PAC report in the public domain bon 2G spectrum and coal block allocation reports till date.
No less than the Supreme Court had declared (May 2013): “We have referred to the report of CAG, the role of PAC and the procedure followed in the House only to indicate that the CAG report is always subject to scrutiny by Parliament, and the Government can always offer its views on the report of CAG. The question that is germane for consideration in this case is whether this Court can grant reliefs merely placing reliance on the CAG report.”
“The report is always subject to parliamentary debates, and it is possible that PAC can accept the Ministry’s objection to the CAG report or reject the report of CAG…the CAG indisputably is an independent Constitutional functionary.”
“However, it is for Parliament to decide whether, after receiving the report, PAC to make its comments on the CAG’s report…we may however, point out that since the report is from a Constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG’s report. The Ministry can always point out if there is any mistake in the CAG’s report or if the CAG report has inappropriately appreciated the various issues…”
Even as recently as August 2024, the Supreme Court had decided that CAG report is only a view which would acquire finality only when PAC submits its report to Parliament and the latter accepts the same. Thus, there are other constraints on CAG reports which need to be kept in view while critiquing these products.
One cannot ignore the long delays in the judicial process which may have contributed to a kind of audit fatigue. A decade is a long time in public memory.
But to say that the absence of convictions means there was no scam is intellectually lazy—and politically convenient. The CAG reports did what they were constitutionally mandated to do: shine light where there was darkness.
If anything, these reports compelled reforms in allocation processes, fostered citizen outrage, and prompted systemic corrections. Licenses were cancelled. Policies were overhauled. Transparency became a buzzword—not because someone went to jail, but because the rot was exposed.
In a country where institutions are often undermined by vested interests, the CAG stood tall when it mattered. It reminded us that the real scam is not just in the act of corruption—but in the system that allows it to go unnoticed.
That the courts may have failed to convict does not mean the system was clean. It may only mean that it was too clever, too slow, or too compromised to get caught.
So, before we allow retrospective cynicism to cloud what were among the most impactful audit reports in Indian history, let’s remember: it was not just about who went to jail.
It was about who robbed the nation of fairness, transparency, and trust. And that is something no acquittal can ever whitewash. Let us not forget, however that there are some serious lessons that CAG would have learnt from these reports to improve its auditing procedures and application of auditing standards. But that is another story.
(This is an opinion piece; Views expressed solely belong to the author)
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
