An RTI inquiry has revealed that the Assam government has paid over ₹47 crore to global consultancy firms like Ernst & Young, PwC, Deloitte, and KPMG. But as 45 departments remain silent, questions of transparency, accountability, and private sector influence over public governance in Assam intensify.
A Glimpse Through the RTI Window: ₹47 Crore and Counting
In a revelation that raises more questions than answers, an RTI petition filed by Rakesh Hazarika, Executive Director of the Centre for Efficient Governance, has exposed that the Assam government has disbursed over ₹47 crore to leading international consultancy firms. The firms include
• Ernst & Young (₹28.04 crore)
• PricewaterhouseCoopers (₹14.43 crore)
• Deloitte (₹4.70 crore)
• KPMG (₹68.8 lakh)
The data was obtained from a limited pool of departments and autonomous bodies that responded to the RTI filed under the Right to Information Act. However, an alarming 45 state departments, PSUs, and other agencies did not respond, withholding critical financial disclosures. This significant silence has added a layer of opacity to what is already a complex web of consultancy involvement in Assam's public policy and execution.
Embedded in Governance: Where the Money Went
From building digital infrastructure to drafting public-private partnership models, global consultancies appear deeply embedded in Assam's bureaucratic machinery. Among the most notable disclosures:
• PwC received ₹8.15 crore for developing the Digital Infrastructure for Direct Benefit Transfer System (DIDS).
• Ernst & Young was paid over ₹13.5 crore by the Commissionerate of Industries and Commerce for a major engagement.
• KPMG worked on headquarters planning and startup incubation programs, though some financial details remain undisclosed.
• Deloitte was also reportedly involved in implementing the PM Vishwakarma Yojana, a flagship central government scheme.
Despite their high-profile roles, many departments confirmed consultancy involvement but withheld the payment details among them, the Assam State Housing Board and AIIDC. In the absence of full disclosure, these partnerships remain obscured from public scrutiny, making it impossible to assess the cost-effectiveness or strategic value of such expenditures.
"The use of these firms is not new," said a retired bureaucrat familiar with multilateral project governance. "But the lack of accountability and open disclosure is where the problem begins."
Silence, Appeal, and the Fight for Transparency
The RTI petitioner, Rakesh Hazarika, expressed serious concerns over the institutional silence from more than 45 government entities. "This isn't just about how much money was spent. It's about who is shaping policy behind the scenes and why the public has no access to this information," Hazarika said in a statement.
He has now filed a second appeal with the Assam State Information Commission, urging it to direct the non-compliant departments to reveal their consultancy engagements and financial details.
"The public has a right to know who's being paid from the state exchequer and for what deliverables. If this level of opacity persists, it raises fundamental questions about democratic oversight," he added.
The Centre for Efficient Governance, which initiated the RTI campaign, stated that their broader goal is to monitor the outsourcing of policy-making to private consultancies and its long-term impact on governance.
The preliminary data, based on the few disclosures received, already suggests heavy reliance on foreign firms for critical decision-making and infrastructure design. But until the rest of the departments comply, the true extent of public money spent on consultancy contracts in Assam remains unknown.
Conclusion: Transparency at a Crossroads
The Assam consultancy expenditure case may be just the tip of the iceberg. With public trust in governance increasingly tied to transparency and accountability, the refusal of nearly four dozen departments to respond to an RTI is not just a bureaucratic lapse—it's a democratic concern.
As Assam navigates its development agenda, the state must decide whether it will choose the path of open governance or remain entangled in institutional opacity. For now, the onus lies on the Information Commission, civil society, and vigilant citizens like Hazarika to keep pressing for the truth—one disclosure at a time.
