"11,412 Crore" Scam (Treasury / Welfare Schemes)

What Is the ₹ 11,412 Crore Scam?

1. Nature of the Scam
   
   
   
   • The figure ₹ 11,412 crore comes from a CAG (Comptroller & Auditor General) finding: funds were paid from the Bihar treasury (state government) between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2008, but the DC (detailed voucher) bills against these payments were allegedly not submitted.
   
   
   • “AC bills” (abstract contingent bills) were raised to draw money from the treasury. These are preliminary estimates. But according to CAG, the corresponding detailed bills (“DC bills”), which should account for actual expenditure, were missing for a huge chunk of the money.
   
   
   • This suggests that the state government may have made "payments" on paper without having proper accounting or documentation for the real expenditure.
   
   
   • The scam allegedly spans multiple welfare and development schemes: MNREGA, mid-day meals, water resources, health, education (HRD), rural works, minor irrigation, road construction, etc.
   
   
   
   


2. Accused / Involved
   
   
   
   • The complaint (filed by a person named Mohan Kumar) names Nitish Kumar, his deputy S. K. Modi, and 45 other individuals.
   
   
   • Also named are several state ministers (for health, HRD, rural development, etc.) and senior bureaucrats (secretaries).
   
   
   • The complainant bases his case on a report by the Accountant General’s office.
   
   
   
   


3. Legal / Investigative Actions
   
   
   
   • A special vigilance court case was filed (as reported in July 2010) against Nitish, his deputy, and others.
   
   
   • The Patna High Court later ordered a CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) probe into the matter.
   
   
   • The BJP defended Nitish’s government by arguing that the issue was “accounts adjustment” rather than a scam.
   
   
   
   


4. Controversy & Debate
   
   
   
   • According to AajTak’s analysis, the controversy is around missing DC bills, which are critical for audit.
   
   
   • The government, at the time, claimed it was an accounting matter and suggested that PAC (Public Accounts Committee) should examine it rather than a criminal probe.
   
   
   • Critics and the complainant view it as misuse or misappropriation of welfare funds; supporters of Nitish’s government argue it's a technical / bureaucratic issue.