Crime Today News
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union of India on a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the process for the selection of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.
Filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), a non-governmental organisation (NGO), the PIL expressed apprehensions over the independence of the CAG office.
The petitioner contended that the practice of appointing the CAG solely on the decision of the executive branch of the government and the Prime Minister was violative of Article 14 (right to equality and against non-discrimination), as well as the basic structure of the Constitution.
The petitioner requested the Apex Court to issue directions so that the CAG was appointed after consultation with an independent and neutral selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.
The PIL further sought directions to make public, all details and documents regarding the selection of CAG.
The petitioner pointed out that a similar direction was earlier issued by the Apex Court for the appointment of members of the Central Information Commission (CIC) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh sought response from the Central government and tagged the PIL with a similar pending case, namely Anupam Kulshreshtha and Ors vs Union of India (2024).
The top court of the country further indicated that the case may be referred to a three-judge Bench, although it did not pass orders to that effect today.
The CAG office audits the revenue and expense accounts of governments, including the Centre, as well as the States/Union Territories. It further prepares reports of the same.
While the reports related to the Centre are sent to the President, those related to the States or UTs are sent to the Governor. Thereafter, the reports are tabled before the Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly, as the case may be.
Representing the CPIL, Advocate Prashant Bhushan today raised concerns over the diminishing number of CAG reports being tabled before the Parliament in the recent years.
The Counsel said the CAG was no longer considered independent. In 2023, only 18 audit reports of CAG were tabled in the Parliament.
On a query from the Bench, Advocate Bhushan said in case the CAG prepared 40 reports, the government had to table them all.
He further expressed concerns over the declining number of staff members.
The Counsel cited an instance from Maharashtra, wherein an audit team was ready, but the audit was stalled, only for the CAG to direct that the audit could take place after the Assembly elections.
Advocate Bhushan said the Apex Court had earlier issued directions over the appointment of officers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in order to protect the independence of these bodies.
He sought similar intervention from the top court of the country on the appointment of CAG.
Referring to Article 148, the top court of the country said that Constitutional provisions ensuring the protection and independence of the CAG’s office were already in place. It was important to trust the institutions and bust the great misconceptions about independence, noted the Bench.
The Bench observed that the matter related to the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner was on a different footing since the Parliament made a law on that issue.
On the other hand, the appointment of CAG was governed by the Constitution, it added.
The top court of the country further pondered over the extent to which it could intervene and rewrite the unbridled power of appointment provided by the Constitution.
Advocate Bhushan submitted that the Apex Court had earlier intervened to modify the process of appointment of judges by devising the Collegium, even when the procedure was laid down by the Constitution, to ensure the independence of the judiciary.
When the Apex Court pointed out that it had earlier dismissed two similar petitions questioning the process for the selection of CAG, Advocate Bhushan contended that the question regarding the CAG’s independence was yet to be decided.
He further said that only (one) similar case was pending (Anupam Kulshreshtha), which was heard a year ago and no counter affidavit has been filed (by the government).
The Bench eventually decided to hear the matter further and tagged it with the Anupam Kulshreshtha case.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT.CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
