House panel may suggest high commissions' audits
A parliamentary panel is likely to recommend that the government revamp the internal mechanisms of Indian embassies, and mandate that each diplomatic mission undergoes at least one audit every three to four years, after a review of some reports revealed rule violations and procedural lapses in the Indian High Commission in London, officials familiar with the matter said. House panel may suggest high commissions' audits
According to the report, which HT has seen, some of the officials at the London high commissionallegedly accepted compensation from a property developer without approval from the ministry of external affairs (MEA) and without any documented justification for the amount accepted. Additionally, a private party was reportedly irregularly authorised to receive and retain government receipts and use them to cover mission expenses. The report also cited that renovation work in the basement of India House, London, was carried out without proper approvals from the concerned authorities.
A draft report, which was adopted by a House panel earlier this week, said, 'The Committee are pained to note the feeble reply of the ministry that punitive action has already been initiated by the Ministry and that there is absence of necessary evidence to support criminal charges against the concerned officials, The Committee are of the considered opinion that the Ministry is trying to protect the delinquent officers when audit has clearly established violation of rules and processes.'
The panel observed that it is not the first time it has seen cases involving violation of rules and guidelines of missions abroad. The draft report maintains the need for a strong deterant action and asked the ministry to proceed with criminal charges against errant officials.
The House panel, according to functionaries, might ask for a wider preventive measure and suggest that internal audit mechanism including its mandate and terms of reference to include transaction and compliance4 audit.
The panel might also suggest that parliamentary panels must be appraised of such audits from at least last five years and its findings.
'The committee emphasize that revamping of the internal audit mechanism is of paramount importance given the frequent occurrence and non-detection of such cases of blatant violations of rules and regulations. Internal audit will help uncover potential risks, vulnerabilities and areas of weakness within the missions allowing for proactive risk management and mitigation strategies to be develop,' the draft added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
44 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India will never restore Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan, asserts Amit Shah
India will never restore the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, Union Home Minister Amit Shah told The Times of India on Saturday. Shah asserted that India will use water that rightfully belongs to it, and that Pakistan 'will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably'. He said that India will use the water that had been flowing to Pakistan from Rajasthan by constructing a canal. India had placed the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance a day after the April 22 terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which left 26 persons dead. India said that the treaty would be suspended until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably' stopped its support for cross-border terrorism. Shah on Saturday told The Times of India: 'International treaties can't be annulled unilaterally but we had the right to put it in abeyance, which we have done. The treaty preamble mentions that it was for peace and progress of the two countries, but that has been violated, there is nothing left to protect.' India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty in 1960 with the World Bank as an additional signatory. The pact sought to divide the water of the Indus river and its tributaries equitably among the two countries. Under the treaty, water from three eastern rivers, Beas, Ravi and Sutlej, were allocated to India and that from the three western rivers – Indus, Chenab and Jhelum – to Pakistan. The treaty also allowed both countries to use the other's rivers for certain purposes, such as small hydroelectric projects that require little or no water storage. Experts told Scroll that the suspension of the treaty implies that India is no longer accountable to Pakistan for using, regulating or stopping the flow of the water of the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers. In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Jal Shakti minister CR Patil had claimed that the Indian government would make sure that 'not a drop of water' goes to Pakistan. Experts, however, refuted claims that India can immediately block the flow of water into Pakistan.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Trump ignites debate on Presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
U.S. President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Mr. Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. Also Read | Donald Trump says Iran nuclear sites 'obliterated,' threatens more strikes 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Mr. Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Follow the Israel-Iran conflict LIVE updates The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Mr. Trump publicly considered the strikes for days, and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Mr. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Mr. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes." Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional." Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Mr. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment." 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Mr. Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Mr. Casar said. "Enough.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Trump sees bipartisan blowback over Iran strikes as Republicans and Democrats question its constitutionality
While most Republicans and Pro-Israeli Democrats lauded the US's strikes on Iran, some questioned its constitutionality, emphasising how Trump bypassed the US Congress to conduct the attack read more Protesters hold a banner with a message and images of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a 'No War on Iran' rally in New York City. Reuters While most congressional Republicans and pro-Israeli Democrats are lauding US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities , the White House is also receiving significant blowback over the strikes. The objection centres around the argument of whether Trump's decision to drag America into the Iran-Israel conflict was constitutional. Soon after the attack, Trump critics pointed out that Trump needed congressional authorisation for such a provocative use of the American military. In light of this, one House Democrat is also pushing for a vote to restrict further unilateral actions. 'We need to immediately return to DC and vote on [Rep. Thomas Massie's and my War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war,' Democratic Representative Ro Khanna from California said in response to Trump's attacks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On Saturday evening, the White House announced that the United States had successfully conducted strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities, Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan . The US's direct involvement in the conflict came more than a week after strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. Republicans question the constitutionality While Democrats condemn US intervention in West Asia, most Republicans lauded Trump's move. However, there were some who called it out as well. Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the most vocal Republicans pushing against American intervention in Iran, posted on X that President Trump's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites is unconstitutional. It is pertinent to note that Massie wanted to introduce a war powers resolution in the House on Tuesday that would prohibit American involvement in Iran. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution,' he posted on X on June 16. This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution. — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 16, 2025 However, there is little appetite among the ruling Republicans, outside of a handful of right-wingers, to be in direct conflict with Trump on the issue. Both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) publicly backed the American strikes on Saturday night. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
