Context: 

Recently, the Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a plea challenging the exclusive prerogative of the Central Government, acting through the President, to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.

More on the News

• Petitioner’s Argument: The plea, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), argues that the existing executive-controlled process violates the Constitution and seeks an independent selection committee for appointing CAG.

Concerns Raised: 

• A decline in the frequency of audits of the Union and state (Maharashtra) Government.
• Allegations of corruption in the recruitment process within the CAG.

Independence of the CAG: 

• The petition argues that the absolute control of the Centre over the appointment of the CAG undermines the office’s independence, which is essential for unbiased audit of financial activities at the Union, State governments, and Panchayati Raj institutions.

Proposed Appointment Process: The petition proposed that the President should appoint the CAG in consultation with a non-partisan selection committee. This committee would include:

• The Prime Minister, 
• The Leader of the Opposition, and
• The Chief Justice of India.

SC’s Response and Considerations:

• A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant issued a notice to the Union Government regarding the petition.
• The Court raised the question of whether judicial intervention in the matter would amount to rewriting Article 148, which does not provide specific guidelines for the appointment of the CAG.
• Justice Kant also remarked that trust in institutions is crucial, citing the existing practice of Presidential appointments to various constitutional posts, such as Governors and Attorney Generals, on the advice of the Union Government.

Relevant Precedents:

The Chief Election Commission of India, where the Court introduced a neutral selection committee to minimize executive control.

• Justice Kant pointed out that the Constitution laid down that CEC appointment shall be as per a law made by Parliament.

The Central Vigilance Commission and Information Commissions, where the Court similarly reduced the Executive’s role in appointments.

The Supreme Court also intervened in the manner of appointment of the CBI director.

About the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)

The CAG is an independent Constitutional body, not an officer of Parliament nor a functionary of the government.

• Articles 148 to 151 (Part V of the Constitution) define the appointment, duties, and audit report responsibilities of the CAG.

The office of the CAG is governed by the Constitution of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers, and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.

The CAG can also perform duties about the accounts of any authority prescribed by law made by Parliament.

The CAG conducts three types of audits:

• Compliance Audit.
• Performance Audit.
• Financial Audit.

The Indian Audit and Accounts Department is the technical agency assisting the CAG in carrying out these audits.

Article 148 states that the CAG is appointed by the President of India, and can be removed on grounds similar to those of a Supreme Court judge.

The Constitution ensures the independence of the CAG by making it ineligible for any government office once they have ceased to hold their position.

The administrative expenses, including the salary and allowances of the CAG, are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India.

Article 149 designates the CAG as the auditor for both Union and State governments.

Article 151 requires CAG reports to be submitted to the President (for Union) or Governor (for States).

• These reports are then laid before Parliament or the State Legislature.

There is no specified time limit in the Constitution or the 1971 Act for the government to table the CAG reports in legislatures.

The Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, 2003 has expanded the CAG's functions and responsibilities.

A CAG can only be removed in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge, which requires a special procedure involving Parliament.

• Article 124 of the Constitution did not specify a procedure for judicial appointments, leaving it to the President's discretion.
• This ambiguity in judicial appointments led to government interference in the past, prompting the Supreme Court to introduce the Collegium system to ensure judicial independence., the same can hold for CAG.