Key Points:
- Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on PIL challenging CAG appointment method.
- NGO CPIL argues current process undermines CAG’s independence.
- Petition seeks neutral, transparent selection panel involving PM, Chief Justice, and Opposition Leader.
- Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlights alleged audit delays in BJP-ruled states.
- Bench expresses concern over judicial intervention in constitutional appointments.
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Central Government seeking its response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the existing procedure for appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). The PIL, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), argues that the current executive-controlled appointment system violates constitutional principles and compromises the independence of India’s top auditing authority.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, argued before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh that recent developments indicate a worrying erosion of the CAG’s autonomy. Bhushan alleged deliberate stalling of audits in BJP-governed states like Maharashtra, suggesting political interference in the functioning of the institution.
“In recent times, the CAG has lost its independence,” Bhushan stated during arguments, emphasizing that government-controlled appointments could significantly undermine impartial oversight.
The petition demands that the Supreme Court declare the current appointment practice unconstitutional and introduce a transparent and independent selection committee. Such a panel would involve consultations among the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of India similar to appointment procedures followed for bodies like Information Commissions and the Central Vigilance Commission.
Justice Surya Kant raised concerns about judicial interference in constitutional provisions: “Where the Constitution has provided an unbridled power of appointment, should and to what extent can the Court rewrite the provision?” The bench also highlighted existing constitutional safeguards that grant CAG officers protections similar to those enjoyed by Supreme Court judges regarding removal from office.
Despite these reservations, recognizing the seriousness of concerns raised, the bench issued notice to the Centre seeking its detailed response. The matter has been tagged with another pending petition on similar issues and may eventually be referred to a larger bench for comprehensive consideration.
The PIL further cites international best practices from countries like the UK, Australia, Germany, and New Zealand as models where independent committees or parliamentary consensus guide auditor appointments. Advocates argue adopting such global best practices would reinforce accountability and transparency in India’s public financial watchdog institution.
