House panel questions Centre, States on issues in SC scholarship schemes

Why in the News

Scholarships meant to keep Scheduled Caste (SC) students in education reached lakhs of them late or not at all, and thousands went to students who were not SCs, a Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) audit found. Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has questioned the Centre and the States over their responses, and may move privilege notices against six States’ Chief Secretaries who failed to appear.

What is the PAC, and why are SC scholarships before it?

1. What it is: The PAC is Parliament’s financial watchdog. It examines how the government spent money Parliament granted, largely through CAG audit reports, like a household checking last month’s bills against its budget.
2. Composition: It has 22 members from both Houses, and by convention since 1967 an Opposition member chairs it. Its present chair is a Congress MP.
3. The schemes: Pre-matric scholarships support SC students in school, and post-matric scholarships support them after Class 10 (matriculation), so poor families can keep children studying.
4. “Fraud markers”: The CAG audit flagged “fraud markers”, warning signs that money may have gone to ineligible or fake claimants.
5. The takeaway: Money meant to keep the poorest students in education is failing to reach many of them, and the PAC is testing who answers for it.

What did the CAG audit find?

1. Delayed payments: About 40.75 lakh beneficiaries across 14 States received their scholarships late.
2. Length of delays: Students waited from one month to as long as 90 months, over seven years, for their money.
3. No payment: More than 3.5 lakh beneficiaries received no scholarship at all.
4. Weak eligibility checks: More than 5,700 scholarships were paid without properly checking whether families met the income limit.
5. Wrong beneficiaries: More than 6,000 non-SC beneficiaries received scholarships, and some students got double, short or excess payments.

How have the Centre and the States responded?

1. Centre’s position: The Union government told the PAC that the implementation burden lies with State and Union Territory administrations.
2. States’ absence: The Chief Secretaries of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Odisha, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh were to brief the panel, but none deputed officials.
3. Privilege threat: The PAC may move privilege notices against them. A breach of privilege is obstruction of a House or its committee in its work, and the House can punish it.
4. Ministry’s deadline: The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has one month to file a detailed action taken report, its formal account of steps taken, on every CAG finding.
5. DBT drop: The PAC noted that beneficiary numbers in both schemes fell sharply after the shift to Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), meaning payment straight into students’ bank accounts.

Challenges

1. Shared responsibility, no owner: The Centre funds and the States implement, so each can blame the other for delays.
2. Exclusion through DBT: Students whose bank accounts are not linked or whose records do not match drop out of the payment chain.
3. Paper based verification: Income and caste checks on paper certificates let ineligible claimants in.
4. Non-binding scrutiny: PAC recommendations work only if the executive acts on them.

Way Forward

1. States before the panel: The six States should depute officials and answer each audit finding in writing.
2. Digital eligibility checks: States should verify income and caste through linked digital certificates before releasing money.
3. Trace dropped students: The Ministry should identify students lost after the DBT shift and fix their account linkage.
4. Payment calendar: Fix deadlines for releasing Central and State shares, so money arrives within the academic year.

Conclusion

A scheme meant to keep SC students in education is losing beneficiaries to delay, exclusion and leakage, with the Centre and the States each pointing at the other. The Ministry’s action taken report, and whether the PAC presses privilege notices against absent Chief Secretaries, are the next markers.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] Consider the following statements about the Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the Parliament of India: 1. Although members of this Committee are elected from both Houses of Parliament, the Chairperson of this Committee is appointed by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. 2. Twenty members are elected by the Rajya Sabha and ten members by the Lok Sabha. 3. No Minister, except for the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, is eligible to be a member of this Committee. 4. Members are elected for a fixed term of two years from the date they enter their office. Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct? (a) There are four correct statements (b) There is only one correct statement, that is statement 2 (c) There are two correct statements, that include statement 1 (d) There is no correct statement ANSWER: D”