IN recent months India has been rocked by one scandal after another. The opposition prevented the winter session of parliament from functioning. The dispute is over the mechanism for inquiry.

In a democratic state its parliament is the Grand Inquest of the Nation. But an inquest is conducted by specialists. Parliament needs the services of specialists who have probed deeply into the matter and reported the findings to the nation's elected representatives.

The auditor-general has been described as “the guide, friend and philosopher of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts”. Once the auditor-general presents his report on any matter it is first considered in detail by the public accounts committee (PAC), generally headed by a member of the opposition. The PAC reports to parliament.

The constitutions of both Pakistan and India establish this high office. Article 168 of the constitution of Pakistan says “there shall be an Auditor-General of Pakistan, who shall be appointed by the President”.

Such is the importance and sensitivity of this office that its holder is made ineligible for “further appointment in the service of Pakistan” for two years after he has ceased to hold that office. He cannot be removed from office except in the manner laid down for the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court.

His reports on the accounts of the federation are submitted to the president who causes them to be bid before the National Assembly. Reports on accounts of the provinces are submitted to their respective governors who cause them to be laid before the provincial assembly.

Articles 148 to 151 of the Indian constitution have broadly similar features for the appointment of the comptroller & auditor-general (CAG). Both constitutions have a common ancestor in the Government of India Act, 1935 which established the office of the Auditor-General of India by Section 166.

Nearly 50 years ago, India's defence minister Krishna Menon was rattled by the reports of the CAG into his doings as high commissioner in London and, later, as defence minister. If he had his way the CAG would have been reduced to being an accountant. “It is not the function of audit to range over the field of administration and offer suggestions on how the government could be better conducted.”

Two authorities refute this self-serving view. Sir Ivor Jennings, a constitutional lawyer of high repute said: “If in the course of his audit, the comptroller and auditor-general becomes aware of facts which appear to him to indicate an improper expenditure or waste of public money, it is his duty to call the attention of parliament to them.”

The former auditor-general Ashok Chanda wrote in his authoritative work on administration that this official “is free to bring to the notice of parliament the impropriety of any executive action, even when its legality is not in question …. to satisfy himself on behalf of parliament as to its 'wisdom, faithfulness and economy'”.

India's CAG came into renewed limelight after his report on the allotment of the 2G Spectrum in 2008 by the Department of Telecommunications. The minister concerned, A. Raja, is now in prison awaiting trial. The PAC is headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Murli Manohar Joshi. But the BJP, and also the Left parties, demanded a joint parliamentary committee (JCP).

Last December, the opposition held up the winter session of parliament and did not allow it to function unless its demand for the JPC was conceded.

Earlier this week, at the budget session of parliament the prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, conceded the demand so that the budget session of parliament would be able to transact business. The majority of members of the PAC as well as the JPC will be from the ruling party. But the opposition thinks that the JPC will be able to question matters of policy and summon and cross-examine ministers and the prime minister.

However, if a question arises as to the relevance of a document sought to be requisitioned or the evidence of a witness, the issue is decided by the speaker, not the committee. The Rules of Procedure of both houses of parliament are very clear on this point.

In the nature of things scandals become issues in the political warfare and affect the nature and scope of the inquiry to be instituted into them. The CAG has since started inquiries into another scandal.

Parliamentary inquiries tend to become partisan. In a sense this reflects the crisis of democracy itself harried as it is by political partisanship carried to excess.

One remedy is the ombudsman set up not by a mere statute but by the constitution itself amended to provide him with the same safeguards which the auditor-general enjoys.

This mohtasib, or as he is called in India, should be empowered to probe into maladministration and improprieties even if there is no breach of law. He should be appointed by the prime minister but after consultation with the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the leader of the opposition.

The writer is an author and a lawyer.