When Ledgers Think: Can Blockchain Audit Reinvent Accountability
Charanjot Singh Nanda, President ICAI, met Shaktikanta Das, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. (Image ICAI on X)
A global-grade audit transformation is possible—but only if India shifts from checklist accounting to algorithmic forensics, builds a statutory roadmap, and prevents technology from outrunning accountability.
By P. SESH KUMAR
New Delhi, December 9, 2025 — India’s most ambitious audit experiment appears to have just been triggered. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) are understood to have begun exploring a joint leap into autonomous, AI-enabled, blockchain-anchored auditing. The promise is intoxicating: error-free verification, continuous audit trails, real-time fraud detection, and a public ledger of truth where every debit and credit carries its own provenance.
Yet beneath the optimism lie uncomfortable questions about data privacy, jurisdiction, cyber-resilience, independence of auditors, and the readiness of India’s sprawling PSU ecosystem to surrender its financial plumbing to an immutable chain.
The announcement that ICAI and the CAG are jointly exploring autonomous audit systems using blockchain and artificial intelligence has injected an unusual electricity into India’s staid compliance world. In a profession accustomed to reconciling vouchers and chasing missing ledgers, the idea that a transaction can now “speak for itself” by embedding a self-verifying audit trail feels nothing short of science fiction.
The proposal imagines a living, breathing accounting ecosystem where each financial entry forms a block in a chain and this chain silently updates every stakeholder-from vendors to tax authorities to auditors-without anybody lifting a pen or clicking “export to Excel.” In a country where audit delays, missing documents, and ever-expanding complexities of PSU accounts are routine frustrations, the appeal is obvious.
Yet the path to an autonomous audit is not merely technological; it demands a complete re-engineering of trust. For decades, ICAI has shaped standards for private and public accountants while the CAG has guarded the integrity of public finance.
Their collaboration signals a tectonic shift: accountability will no longer be dependent on human diligence alone but on intelligent systems that watch continuously, compare instantly, and validate automatically. What is perhaps being attempted is not incremental reform-it is the replacement of episodic auditing with perpetual oversight.
The attraction of blockchain lies in its promise of immutability and transparency. Every transaction in a PSU could be cryptographically time-stamped, linked to vendor records, GST filings, bank confirmations, and internal approvals.
AI layers would sit atop this chain, mining anomalies, raising red flags, drafting automated working papers, and even suggesting risk-based sampling logic. In theory, this eliminates the very weaknesses that have plagued audits-selective evidence, delayed reconciliations, human fatigue, collusive manipulation, and fragmented information systems across departments.
For the CAG, which routinely battles incomplete data, opaque ERP systems, and crafty auditees, such an infrastructure could be revolutionary.
But the seduction of technology hides several storms gathering beneath the surface.
The first is data privacy—an immutable blockchain that mirrors financial relationships across GST, income tax, banks, PSUs, and suppliers creates a single, interconnected cathedral of sensitive information.
Who controls access? Who authorises new nodes? Can a public authority examine private-sector ledgers without explicit statutory mandate? What happens when immutable records contain errors that cannot be legislatively modified?
The second is jurisdiction. The CAG audits public entities; ICAI regulates auditors. If autonomous audit tools start operating continuously, who is accountable for errors generated by the AI? Who is the “auditor”—the machine or the human signing the report? India’s legal system has never dealt with algorithmic accountability embedded inside a constitutional audit institution.
International experiences offer both inspiration and warning. Estonia’s e-governance system uses distributed ledgers to secure public databases, but it works only because the entire state architecture is digitally unified. The UAE has piloted blockchain in procurement audits but found that legacy systems often fail to feed reliable data into the chain.
The World Bank has experimented with blockchain in development-finance tracking, only to discover that unless upstream data quality is strong, even an immutable ledger simply preserves bad information perfectly. In the corporate world, the Big Four have tested AI-managed audit workflows but still struggle with interpretability of machine-generated risk assessments.
Autonomous audits succeed only where governance maturity, data discipline, and regulatory clarity move together; technology alone cannot fill structural gaps.
India’s PSUs add another layer of complexity. Many operate with ageing ERP systems, inconsistent data capture, manual interfaces, and department-wise silos that cannot instantly leap into a blockchain environment.
If the foundational data that enters the chain is unreliable or manipulated before entry, immutability becomes a curse, not a safeguard. Moreover, autonomous audits demand secure, high-bandwidth infrastructure, rigorous cyber-security frameworks, and clarity on how confidential commercial data will be encrypted, shared, or anonymised. No technology can overcome the fundamental governance challenge that organisations often resist transparency that threatens entrenched interests.
Yet the initiative’s potential cannot be dismissed. If implemented intelligently, AI-driven autonomous audits can compress audit cycles dramatically, reducing months of field work into continuous real-time oversight.
They can enhance accuracy by eliminating transcription errors, automatically validating balances with external datasets, and detecting suspicious patterns before they mature into scandals. They can expand audit coverage, freeing human auditors to focus on judgment-heavy areas such as performance audit, governance evaluation, and public value assessments.
They can improve veracity by providing tamper-proof evidence chains, reducing the perennial “records were not produced” excuse that dogs public-sector audits. And they can strengthen the credibility of both ICAI and CAG at a time when audit failures-from IL&FS to DHFL, from cooperative banking scandals to PSU leakages-have eroded public confidence.
The biggest pitfall, however, is assuming that automation will automatically produce accountability. Technology is only as strong as the governance architecture that deploys it. If audit independence is compromised, if PSU management controls the blockchain nodes, if AI models are opaque, or if regulators lack the expertise to interpret machine-generated outputs, the experiment may end up institutionalising a sophisticated illusion of accountability rather than the real thing.
There is also the danger of over-reliance on AI, where auditors gradually lose the intuition and scepticism that define true professional judgment. Machines can mark anomalies; only humans can understand the story behind them.
The way forward must therefore be calibrated, not breathless. India needs a carefully designed legal framework defining data ownership, access rights, confidentiality rules, and admissibility of machine-generated audit evidence. Pilot projects should begin with a few digitally mature PSUs before expansion.
Independent technical oversight bodies must validate AI algorithms for bias, error rates, and audit trail integrity. Blockchain implementations must avoid centralised control by any single authority and ensure layered permissions with cryptographic safeguards.
Auditor training must shift from procedural checklists to digital forensics, algorithmic reasoning, and systems audit. Above all, the collaboration between ICAI and CAG should remain anchored in public interest rather than institutional turf wars, or glossy conference talking points because autonomous auditing can succeed only when credibility is shared and accountability is unambiguous.
If done right, the attempt could pioneer a global audit transformation where machines handle the monotony and humans reclaim the higher purpose of assuring integrity. If mishandled, it could become yet another expensive experiment that leaves behind more dashboards than discipline.
The choice, as always, lies in the quality of the questions India asks before the technology answers them.
Move with Caution and Statutory-backed Roadmap
The ICAI–CAG initiative must move cautiously through a structured, statute-backed roadmap that begins with digital-maturity assessments of PSUs, creates a unified audit data architecture, and establishes independent algorithm-validation bodies. The shift to autonomous audits should be piloted, not proclaimed, ensuring that privacy protections, cryptographic safeguards, interoperable data standards, and a third-party cybersecurity audit regime are institutionalised before scale-up.
Most importantly, the legal framework for AI-assisted auditing must define liability, oversight, and evidentiary status clearly so that automation does not dilute audit independence but strengthens it. Only such a disciplined evolution can allow India to transform its audit landscape without sacrificing constitutional accountability at the altar of technological enthusiasm.
(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)
IBC Under the Scanner: Why a CAG Audit Is Urgent
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
