The Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana (SAUBHAGYA) was conceived as a transformative national mission-to ensure universal household electrification and bring dignity, opportunity and economic momentum to millions living on the margins. The scheme carried even greater promise in a region like J&K, which has difficult terrain, dispersed habitations, and a long history of infrastructural deficit. Yet, the observations of the CAG have once again cast a long shadow over the manner in which this prestigious programme has been implemented in the UT. The CAG’s audit report flags an expenditure of Rs 27.59 crore on seven projects in J&K and Ladakh for works that were not approved in the DPRs. This is not a minor procedural lapse. DPRs are the backbone of any public infrastructure project-they define the scope, cost, technical specifications and timelines. When funds are spent on works outside approved DPRs, it directly violates scheme guidelines and raises serious questions about intent, oversight and accountability.
What makes the issue more troubling is that SAUBHAGYA guidelines explicitly mandate DISCOMs to utilise funds strictly for the purposes for which they are released. There is little room for ambiguity. Against this clear framework, it is indeed strange-and alarming-that JKPDCL allegedly diverted funds to works not envisaged under the approved plans. If the scope and conditions were well defined, as they invariably are in centrally sponsored schemes, what compelled such deviations? Were these decisions driven by administrative exigencies, or do they point to a deeper malaise within the system?
The MoP, in its response, has denied any irregular expenditure, claiming that scheme closures were approved after due scrutiny by the REC and monitoring committees. However, denial alone cannot substitute for evidence. The audit notes that the Ministry was able to furnish closure documents for only one division, accounting for a mere Rs 0.09 crore. For the remaining amount-over Rs 27 crore-no supporting documents were produced despite audit rebuttals. This gap between assertion and substantiation weakens the Ministry’s defence and reinforces the CAG’s concerns.
More importantly, this episode cannot be viewed in isolation. Unfortunately, this is not the first time SAUBHAGYA’s implementation in J&K has been marred by controversy. Earlier, a mega scam related to the scheme was reported, prompting an inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. While irregularities were acknowledged, the outcome was deeply unsatisfactory: instead of filing a chargesheet, the ACB recommended only departmental action against the accused officials. Even that limited action, as records suggest, was never taken. Shockingly, officials named in the inquiry continue to enjoy plum postings in JKPDCL, sending a damaging message about impunity. The judiciary, however, has shown greater seriousness. In this case, a Special Judge rejected the ACB’s closure report and ordered further investigation, underscoring that the matter warranted deeper scrutiny. When this judicial intervention is seen alongside the latest CAG red flags, a disturbing pattern emerges-one of repeated irregularities, weak enforcement and apparent attempts to brush uncomfortable findings under the carpet.
Viewed on a broader canvas, these developments suggest systemic misappropriation and sustained governance failure in the handling of SAUBHAGYA funds in J&K. Each instance, left inadequately addressed, emboldens the next. The consequences are not merely financial. Such bungling erodes public trust, deprives genuinely needy households of electricity connections, and risks jeopardising future central assistance. Central ministries and funding agencies do take note of audit observations, and repeated adverse findings can have a cascading effect on future grants and projects for the UT.
The way forward must be unequivocal. The government must comprehensively examine all irregularities flagged by the CAG and respond with complete, verifiable supporting documents. Simultaneously, it must act on the ACB’s earlier findings by initiating firm departmental proceedings against the officers already identified, without fear or favour. Given that related matters are under judicial scrutiny, any delay or half-measure would not only be administratively indefensible but also legally imprudent.
Accountability is not optional; it is foundational to public service. Corruption, malpractice and complicity can never be normalised. SAUBHAGYA was designed to light up dark homes-not to create grey zones of financial opacity. Fixing responsibility, punishing the guilty and restoring integrity in implementation are not optional but mandatory.
The post SAUBHAGYA Under Scrutiny appeared first on Daily Excelsior.