Corporates are doing it, political leaders are doing it, but even the government is doing it: paying cash for getting publicity in newspapers and TV channels. The only difference is that the government pays and yet fails to get anything in return.

The Indian Council of Cultural Relations, which basically organises concerts and art shows in India and abroad, has paid money to a public-relations firm for ensuring coverage of its praiseworthy activities. And, if that is not shocking enough, the PR firm simply did not deliver any publicity even after pocketing nearly Rs.50 lakh.

We would not have known this but for the Comptroller and Auditor General. In a compliance audit report of 2008-9 (which is the latest available), the CAG has pulled up the external affairs ministry for this goof-up by the ICCR.

Here is the rumpus, ad verbatim from the CAG report:

According to the advertisement policy of the Government, all Central Government advertisements are to be routed through the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity. Therefore, all attached offices, autonomous organisations and public sector undertakings under the Ministries/Departments have to route their advertisements through the Directorate. As far as media coverage of events is concerned, such organisations should approach the Press Information Bureau for their assistance.

In contravention of these policies, the ICCR entered into a MoU with a public relations consultancy firm (consultant) in August 2003. As per the MoU, the work of publicising was categorised under two packages with different levels of exposure in the media as given below:

Package 1: Under this package, the consultant was to ensure Rs. one lakh worth of print advertising in one mainline Press involving readership of 10 lakh and above or Rs. one lakh worth of TV advertising and 'possibly both'. This package was for routine events organised by the Council and the payment for this package was fixed at Rs. one lakh.

Package 2: Under this package, the consultant had to ensure editorial writeups in the mainline Press and one mainline TV channel and clips on three to five channels, which had to add up to more than Rs. 5 lakh worth of space and airtime. This package was for security sensitive events where VVIPs like the President, Vice President, Prime Minister etc. would be present. The payment for this package to the consultant was Rs. 3.50 lakh.

As per the MoU, post event electronic media hits were to be presented on a computer floppy for evaluation along with actual hard copies of press clippings listing publications and dates. This evaluation of performance was to be done by independent agencies hired by mutual consent by the client and the consultant.

It was noticed that the terms of the MoU did not clearly mention the output, which the consultant was required to provide. As per Package 2 of the MoU, the consultant was to ensure editorial writeups in the mainline press, which obviously could neither be purchased nor ensured. It was observed that the records pertaining to engagement of the consultant were not available with ICCR. No evaluation of the performance of the

consultant by independent agencies was made. ICCR made payments totalling Rs. 49.91 lakh to the consultant during 2003-08 for 33 events without any evidence of advertisements, editorial writeups in the mainline Press and coverage of events on TV channels as required under MoU. The consultant made the claims for payment on their letterhead without any bill or service tax number. ICCR also paid service tax to the consultant aggregating Rs. 2.12 lakh without proof of their registration during the period from 2004-05 to 2006-07.

The Management stated in September 2008 that it had revised the rates in April 2008 and had decided to pay the amount as per MoU for three or four events, which it was earlier paying for one event. The reply of the Management strengthens the audit observation.

Thus, unjustified payments of Rs. 49.91 lakh were made by ICCR to the consultant, in contravention of the advertisement policy of the Government and without consulting the Press Information Bureau. The matter was referred to the Ministry in September 2008? their reply was awaited as of February 2009.