New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Centre on a PIL challenging the procedure for appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on grounds that it is “not independent, fair and transparent”.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the PIL petitioners, along with advocate Varun Singh that the existing system of the executive appointing the CAG lacks transparency. The bench issued notices to the union ministries of Law and Justice and Finance on the PIL filed by Anupam Kulshreshtha and others.
The petitioners sought direction to ensure a fair, transparent, and independent appointment process for CAG as outlined in Article 148 of the Constitution of India. The plea submitted that the present procedure for the appointment of CAG lacks transparency and independence.
“CAG is directly appointed by the Executive without any prescribed procedure. That such a procedure is against the very observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the CEC Judgement. That the CAG being directly appointed by the Executives, will always be in a state of obligation or feel indebted to the one who appointed him”, it added.
The plea said Dr B.R. Ambedkar and others, in the Constituent Assembly Debates, hailed the CAG as the "most important officer under the Constitution”, and the Constitution mandates the President to appoint the CAG under his hand and seal.
The current procedure, the plea contended, involves the Cabinet Secretariat shortlisting names for the Prime Minister's consideration, from which the Prime Minister sends one name to the President. “However, this process, where the President approves a single name proposed by the Prime Minister, contradicts the Constitution's intent for the CAG's independence. The appointment process virtually entrusts the high constitutional post of the CAG to the Cabinet Secretary, allowing arbitrary shortlisting without established criteria. The Prime Minister then holds sole discretion in choosing from the Cabinet Secretary's shortlisted candidates, rendering the process arbitrary and against constitutional mandates”, it added.
The plea sought a direction to “declare that the procedure adopted for the appointment of CAG is against the mandate of the Constitution of India and the same is not independent, fair and transparent”.
“This Hon’ble Court in the CEC judgement observed that it is important that the appointment must not be overshadowed by even a perception, that a ‘yes man’ will decide the fate of democracy and all that it promises. The present situation is such that the process adopted for appointment of CAG prima facie appears to lack independence and seems to be yet another post under the absolute control and allegiance to the Executive”, said the plea.
Read More
