Supreme Court asks Centre to respond in 4 weeks to PIL challenging current system of appointing CAG

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to respond to a PIL challenging the current system of appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) solely by the government even as it said, “We have to trust our institutions.”

A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant gave four weeks to the Centre to file its reply to the PIL filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) after petitioner’s counsel Prashant Bhushan pointed out that the government hasn’t filed its counter-affidavit in the matter.

“The petition seeks to amend the Constitution…But anyway I would request four weeks to file my counter (affidavit),” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench, which also gave two weeks to the petitioner NGO to file its rejoinder.

The top court had on March 17 asked the Centre to respond to the PIL even as it said, “We have to trust our institutions.” It had said that the petition should be clubbed with another petition pending on the issue.

The NGO contended that the current system of appointing the CAG was “manifestly arbitrary, detrimental to institutional integrity and violates several basic features of the Constitution”.

Bhushan said if the appointment was controlled by the government, the CAG’s independence will be compromised.

However, the Bench in March said, "We have to trust our institutions also.”

It had referred to Article 148 of the Constitution according to which the CAG has the same level of protection as a Supreme Court Judge when it comes to removal from office.

Noting that even the Election Commissioners have the same protection, Bhushan had pointed out that the Supreme Court found it to be inadequate to protect their independence, and changed the system of appointing CEC and ECs. Under the current system, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is solely appointed by the Government and the Prime Minister.

However, the PIL sought a direction that the CAG shall be appointed in a transparent manner by the President in consultation with an independent and neutral selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) and the Chief Justice of India. It said the system for appointment of CAG should be similar to the appointment of other bodies including Information Commissions and the Central Vigilance Commission.

The PIL alleged that the present system of appointment of the CAG done solely by the executive i.e. by the Prime Minister -- who handpicks any individual and recommends his name to the President for appointment -- was unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and several basic features of the Constitution. It alleged several instances of political and executive interference with the functioning of CAG.

Alleging that it undermined the independence of the office of the CAG, suffered from grave conflict of interest and was detrimental to good governance and democracy in India, the PIL contended that it was also “manifestly arbitrary, detrimental to institutional integrity and violates several basic features of the constitution”.