Standing up for its exclusive right to choose the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India,the Centre on Wednesday said that no selection criteria can be prescribed for CAGs appointment in view of the Constitutional restrictions. In its counter affidavit on a PIL that challenged the appointment of former defence secretary Shashi Kant Sharma as the CAG,the government said the appointment was made under Article 148 (1) of the Constitution,which did not prescribe any qualification,experience or procedure for such an appointment. Contending that even the CAG Act did not contain provisions relating to the appointment,the Centre,before the Delhi High Court,sought to ward off all attempts to read into the Constitution so as to lay down criteria for CAGs appointment. It argued that any interpretation of the Constitutional mandate on CAG would amount to virtually amending it. In the light of the views expressed by the framers of the Constitution,the present PIL cannot seek to prescribe eligibility criteria,which were specifically omitted by the framers of the Constitution, said the Ministry of Finance. CAG is appointed by the Prime Minister,who selects a name from a list of senior civil servants prepared by Cabinet Secretary. The name of the selected officer is sent to the President,who puts his seal of approval. The governments affidavit can be seen as yet another illustration of its assertiveness. It is already putting up a fight in the apex court against dilution of its power to grant sanction to the CBI for investigating its top officers even in court-monitored probes. It has also trashed most demands for more power by the CBI over functional autonomy. The PIL has been filed by former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami and eight other eminent citizens,who sought setting aside of Sharmas appointment since it was made arbitrarily and without any system for selection or eligibility criteria. It also demanded a transparent selection procedure for appointment as CAG. It also cited the apex courts judgment,quashing the appointment of P J Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner. However,defending Sharmas appointment as CAG,the government said that his unblemished and proven track record of 37 years in service indicated he was the right choice. The affidavit also countered the allegations of Sharmas conflict of interest in the wake of allegations that during his tenure in the defence,he cleared several controversial defence deals,including Agusta Westland Chopper and Tatra truck deals.
