The Mahatma Gandhi national rural employment guarantee scheme (MNREGS) is one of the few central schemes that have a large number of monitoring agencies keeping an eye on implementation. From the centre to the state to the district to the panchayat level, there is some agency or the other appointed to look into any allegation of irregularity in the scheme. However, call it the sheer brazenness of the implementing agencies or the willful blindness of the monitoring bodies that crores of rupees of MNREGS funds are being siphoned off in states like Uttar Pradesh (see the cover story in the Governance Now issue: Nationa Rural Embezzlement Guarantee Scheme; October 16-31).

Let’s take a look at such bodies at each level.

At the centre there is a central employment guarantee council (CEGC), a group of prominent civil society members like Aruna Roy and Jean Dreze, and senior officials from rural development ministry, created to advise the central government on the implementation of the NREGA. Its functions and duties among others include; to review the monitoring and redressal mechanism from time to time and recommend improvements required, monitor the implementation of the act, preparation of annual reports to be submitted to parliament by the central government on the implementation of the Act.

The tragedy of this council is that it does not meet as often as it should. Both Roy and Dreze have publicly voiced their concerns about the ineffectiveness of the council. “The CEGC has wide powers and responsibilities under the Act. It was intended to act as an independent watchdog for MNREGS at the national level. However, CEGC has failed to fulfill its mandate under the law,” they said in an unsigned document titled ‘Crisis in MNREGS: priority issues’ released to the in September last year.

Apart from the CEGC, there is a group of 60 eminent citizens and 352 national level monitors (NLMs) at the centre.   

The NLMs, who are retired civil/defence service officers and members of the academia, are required to visit different districts, ascertain the implementation of the programmes, interact with officials, verify the assets created and interview the villagers and submit report within a given time frame.  

The 60 eminent citizens include retired judges, ambassadors, chief secretaries of states, vice chancellors, members of defence forces, social activists, academicians and scientists, editors and journalists. They have been allotted different districts where they should visit once a year and spend six days interviewing various officials, workers and other stakeholders to assess implementation of the scheme. Out of 61 eminent citizens, who were appointed in March 2010, only two—AK Jain for Kokrajhar in Assam and KL Malhan for Devangere in Karnataka – have filed their reports. 

Senior officials at the rural development ministry are also supposed to visit states at least once a year to assess the implementation of the rural development programmes on the ground.  

While the central monitoring agencies have a restricted mandate with a restricted schedule to assess the ground situation, it’s those at the state that are expected to regularly visit the project sites, physically verify the projects, and report irregularities, if any. 

And there are hosts of monitoring bodies at the state level. 

First and foremost there are vigilance and monitoring committees (V&MCs) both at the state and district level. The state V&MC is headed by the state rural development minister and the district V&MCs are headed by the members of parliament from the district. One of the main objectives of the V&MCs is to provide a crucial role to the elected representatives in the implementation of the rural development programmes including MNREGS. As head of district V&MC, the MPs have the power to ensure the proper utilisation of the huge funds flowing from the centre through various development schemes.   

Unfortunately, the sparring between the MPs and the state government (when the MP belongs to a different political party), often render the monitoring bodies ineffective. An example of such confrontation is the tussle between congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi, who as MP from Amethi in Uttar Pradesh, heads the Sultanpur V&MC. In one of the meetings in March last year, the BSP legislators scuttled Gandhi’s proposal to the state to hand over an MNREGS scam inquiry to a central agency. 

Other than V&MCs the state governments are supposed to appoint (according to a central government’s order dated September 2009) ombudsmen, again at the state and district level, for the purpose of effective redressal of grievances in regards to the implementation of MNREGS. As of date only Punjab has complied with the order. 

Together with the offices of V&MC and ombudsman, the district officials from district collector to the BDO and other subordinate staff are also required to visit each project site for physical verification of the works that is sanctioned.  

At the level of panchayats, there is a mechanism for social audits at every panchayat undertaking any MNREGS work in a financial year. According to section 17 (2) of the Act, a gram panchayat should organise a social audit forum at least once every six months to serve as a platform for members of the gram sabha to review and verify financial expenditure, examine the provisions of entitlements, and evaluate the quality of works and services, record social audit objections, pass resolutions and take up any mater related to the implementation of the NREGA.

Social audits conducted by the gram sabha (if carried out according the guidelines of the act) are the most effective means to unravel any case of impropriety in the scheme. However, majority of the gram sabha’s never meet to finalise the works to be undertaken under MNREGS, let alone meeting for an audit purpose.