New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Union Governmentโs response to a public interest litigation (PIL) urging the establishment of an independent and neutral process for appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.
The plea, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), proposed that the CAG be selected by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India to ensure impartiality.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, argued that the existing systemโwhere the Union Government unilaterally appoints the CAGโcompromises the constitutional bodyโs autonomy. โIn recent times, the CAG has lost its independence,โ Bhushan asserted, highlighting concerns such as a decline in audit reports, reduced staff strength, and stalled audits in states governed by the BJP, including Maharashtra.
ALSO READ: INA veteran Lt R Madhavan Pillai marks 100th year with solemn tribute to Netaji and martyrs
A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Nagarathna K. Singh questioned whether there was concrete evidence of โdeviationโ in the CAGโs functioning to justify doubts about its independence. Bhushan countered by citing the Supreme Courtโs past interventions in appointments for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director and the Election Commission, where guidelines were introduced to insulate these roles from executive influence.
Justice Kant, however, underscored the constitutional safeguard under Article 148, which grants the CAG the same protection against removal as a Supreme Court judge. Bhushan responded that such protections alone were insufficient, drawing parallels to the Election Commissionโs case (*Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India*), where the Court mandated a bipartisan selection committee despite constitutional provisions.
ALSO READ: Indian Navyโs โน19,000 cr fleet support ship project: Second vesselโs keel laid at L&T shipyard
The bench deliberated on whether judicial intervention was permissible when the Constitution explicitly vests appointment powers with the President. โWhere the Constitution provides unbridled power of appointment, to what extent can the Court rewrite the provision?โ Justice Kant queried.
Ultimately, the Court agreed to issue notice to the Centre and tagged the petition with a similar pending case. Observing the matterโs significance, Justice Kant suggested it be heard by a three-judge bench, while Bhushan emphasized the potential need for a Constitution Bench. The case underscores growing debates over institutional autonomy and the judiciaryโs role in reshaping appointment mechanisms for critical oversight bodies.
