The steady expansion of developmental works across J&K in recent years reflects an ambitious push towards infrastructure creation, welfare delivery and grassroots governance. However, the strength of any development model does not rest merely on the number of projects completed on paper but on the assurance that these works exist on the ground and meet quality standards. In this context, the sharp decline in physical verification of completed works during 2024-25 is not just a statistical concern but a serious governance issue that demands urgent attention.
Physical verification is not a procedural ritual. It is the backbone of transparency, accountability and public trust in governance. The decision to institutionalise 100 per cent physical verification from 2021-22 was a landmark step aimed at ensuring that public funds translate into tangible, durable assets. The process was designed to enforce fiscal discipline, prevent cost overruns, detect ghost work, and ensure the timely completion of projects. It also aimed to integrate various governance checkpoints, such as administrative approvals, technical sanctions, e-tendering compliance, and the final delivery of benefits to the public. In essence, verification is the final proof that governance commitments are being honoured.
The performance during the first three years of implementation demonstrated that the system was capable of delivering. With verification levels consistently at or above 90 per cent between 2021-22 and 2023-24, the monitoring framework was functioning exceptionally well. These numbers reflected not just administrative efficiency but also a strong political and institutional commitment towards transparent governance. Such high verification rates strengthened public confidence and sent a clear message that misuse of public funds would not be tolerated.
The sudden collapse of verification rates to 44 per cent in 2024-25, therefore, cannot be brushed aside as a routine administrative fluctuation. More importantly, this decline is difficult to explain under any circumstances. There were no natural calamities, no major law and order disruptions, and no extraordinary administrative crises that could justify such a massive drop. The same institutional structure and manpower existed, yet the system failed to verify even half of the completed works. What is even more concerning is the apparent absence of accountability for this failure. The lack of any visible attempt by authorities to seek explanations or initiate corrective measures raises serious questions about institutional seriousness towards monitoring. When a system that once delivered near-total verification suddenly collapses, it should trigger alarms at the highest levels of governance. Silence or inaction in such situations risks normalising procedural bypassing. The importance of physical verification becomes even more critical when viewed in the context of past instances of fraudulent withdrawals, where funds were released without actual execution of works. Such cases erode public faith and highlight why verification cannot be compromised. It is not merely about checking files; it is about protecting public money and ensuring that development reaches intended beneficiaries.
The reverse tendering adds another dimension to the concern. When contractors pick up projects at rates significantly below the estimated cost, questions naturally arise about quality assurance. While cost savings may appear attractive on paper, substandard execution can result in poor asset life, higher maintenance costs and ultimately wastage of public funds. Without strong physical verification, it becomes nearly impossible to ensure that low-cost tenders are not translating into low-quality infrastructure. Another critical question that requires clarity is the status of payments in cases where mandatory physical verification has not been completed. If payments are being released without verification, it amounts to bypassing established financial safeguards. If payments are being withheld, it may indicate a backlog that could eventually create financial and contractual disputes. Either scenario requires transparency and clear policy direction.
Given that thousands of crores of public money are involved, verification cannot be treated as an optional administrative activity. It must remain a non-negotiable governance standard. The Government must ensure restoration of 100 per cent physical verification through manpower augmentation, technology integration, strict monitoring timelines and personal accountability of officers responsible for inspections. Development is ultimately measured not by expenditure but by outcomes. Ensuring full verification is not just about administrative compliance. It is about safeguarding public trust, protecting public money and ensuring that development promises are fulfilled in reality, not just in reports.
The post Verification Gaps Raise Alarm appeared first on Daily Excelsior.