Supreme Court Takes on CAG Appointment Process for Greater Transparency

The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the current process of appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, seeking more transparency and independence. A PIL by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenges existing practices, urging a presidential appointment with input from an impartial selection committee.

The Supreme Court issued a notice to the central government on Monday in response to a Public Interest Litigation challenging the current procedure for appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). The petition demands a more independent and transparent selection process. Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotishwar Singh requested a response from the Centre on this matter and linked it to a related pending case.

The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) criticized the existing system, which allows the central government to unilaterally select the CAG, arguing it compromises the position's independence. The plea advocates for the President to appoint the CAG based on advice from an unbiased selection committee formed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

Representing the CPIL, Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted concerns over diminishing CAG independence. He alleged audits in BJP-governed states are hindering progress, describing it as an 'unfortunate development.' Despite these concerns, Justice Kant emphasized the importance of trusting national institutions.

The petitioners argued that the present appointment process lacks fairness and transparency, potentially compromising the CAG's autonomy. They urge the court to declare the current practice, dominated by the executive and Prime Minister's influence, unconstitutional.

The plea denounces the executive's sole authority over CAG appointments as threatening to the role's independence, posing a conflict of interest and undermining democratic governance. The CPIL insists that the process should align with standards set for other statutory bodies like the Information Commissions and the Central Vigilance Commission.

(With inputs from agencies.)