On Monday, the Supreme Court, while considering a petition challenging the appointment process of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), observed that judicial intervention in constitutional appointments must be carefully assessed. The Court sought the Union Government's response on whether an independent and neutral mechanism should be established to ensure the autonomy of the CAG.
The petition, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), argued that the existing system, where the Union Government unilaterally appoints the CAG, compromises the office’s independence. The petitioner sought a directive mandating the formation of an independent selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India for the appointment process.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the autonomy of the CAG had eroded in recent years, citing a decline in audit reports and staff strength. It was argued that audits of states governed by the ruling party were being delayed, raising concerns about impartiality. The petitioner highlighted past judicial interventions in appointments to institutions such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Election Commission, asserting that a similar approach was necessary to safeguard the independence of the CAG.
The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh examined the constitutional framework governing the appointment and tenure of the CAG under Article 148 of the Constitution. The bench questioned whether the existing safeguards, particularly protection against removal akin to that of a Supreme Court judge, were sufficient to ensure institutional independence. The Court also noted the distinction between the provisions governing the Election Commission, where appointments are to be made as per parliamentary legislation, and those concerning the CAG, where the Constitution vests the power of appointment in the President.
During the hearing, the Court observed, "Where the Constitution has provided an unbridled power of appointment, should and to what extent the Court rewrite the provision?" While acknowledging the concerns raised, the bench remarked that institutional trust is also a crucial factor in such matters.
Ultimately, the Court issued a notice to the Union Government, seeking its response to the petition. The matter was tagged with a similar pending case, and the bench indicated that it may require adjudication by a larger three-judge bench.
Picture Source :
