Supreme Court issues notice to Centre in PIL seeking independent committee for CAG appointment

“We have to trust our institutions also,” Justice Surya Kant presiding over a two-judge bench said as Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) contended that leaving the appointments to the government would compromise their independence.

The bench, also comprising Justice N K Singh, expressed doubts about the extent to which the court can interfere in the appointment and specify a different procedure when Article 148 of the Constitution says the President shall appoint CAG. “Where the Constitution has provided an unbridled power of appointment, should and to what extent the Court rewrite the provision?” asked Justice Kant.

Article 148 (1) says, “There shall be a Comptroller and Auditor-General of India who shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and shall only be removed from office in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.”

When Bhushan claimed that “in recent times, the CAG has lost its independence,” the bench asked him about the deviations he was pointing to. To which, Bhushan said CAG reports have been coming down in recent years and its staff strength was also declining. He said in BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra, the audit is being stalled.

As the court referred to Article 148, Bhushan said, “The question is whether just the safeguard against removal is sufficient to guarantee independence?”

He also cited the March 2023 SC judgement directing the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the panel for finalising names for appointment as Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners. Bhushan added the Supreme Court also intervened in the manner of appointment of the CBI director.

However, the bench said as regards CEC, the constitutional provisions were quite different. Justice Kant pointed out that the Constitution laid down that their appointment shall be as per a law made by Parliament.

Tagging it with another pending matter seeking similar reliefs, Justice Kant remarked that it would have to be heard by a three-judge bench.

Bhushan said that given its importance, even a Constitution bench could take it up, adding that the question of CAG’s independence had not been dealt with yet.