Consider the following statements regarding the CAG's performance audit of Chhattisgarh's District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT):
- The District Mineral Foundation was established under Section 9B of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, requiring mining companies to pay a share of royalty into a foundation for the district in which they operate.
- The audit found that despite 81 percent fund utilisation in sampled districts, 44 percent of directly affected villages received no coverage at all.
- The audit attributed the fund's diversion primarily to outright embezzlement and falsification of expenditure records by district officials.
- A widened definition of "Affected People" allowed funds to be spent on a broader population instead of only those directly affected by mining.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Tests the ability to distinguish legal definitional dilution ("mission drift") from outright corruption or embezzlement - a nuanced governance-accountability distinction requiring careful reading rather than surface-level recall.
Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: CAG Audit Finds Chhattisgarh's Rs 13,101-Crore Mining Welfare Fund Drifted From Its Purpose