SC to examine petition on CAG appointment process

Context :

• The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition challenging the Centre’s exclusive control over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
• The plea argues that the CAG’s independence is compromised when the Executive alone controls its appointment.
• The petitioner suggests a more transparent and non-partisan selection process.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary , Constitutional Bodies)

Key Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 148(1) of the Constitution:
  • States that the CAG is appointed by the President of India.
  • However, it does not prescribe a detailed appointment procedure.
  • CAG’s removal process is similar to that of a Supreme Court judge.
• Current Appointment Process:
  • The Executive (Union government) has sole discretion in appointing the CAG.
  • There is no formal consultation with other stakeholders, unlike in the appointment of Election Commissioners or CBI Directors.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Threat to Independence:
  • CAG is a watchdog of financial accountability, overseeing Union, State, and Panchayati Raj institutions.
  • A politically influenced appointment process undermines the impartiality of audits.
• Need for a Selection Committee:
  • The petitioner suggests forming a non-partisan selection committee consisting of:
    • The Prime Minister
    • The Leader of the Opposition
    • The Chief Justice of India
  • This would prevent political bias in CAG appointments.
• Recent Concerns with CAG’s Functioning:
  • The petition refers to declining audits of the Union government.
  • Raises concerns about the “pause” in Maharashtra audits and selective reporting of financial irregularities.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• Justice Surya Kant raised a constitutional concern:
  • Would judicial intervention amount to rewriting Article 148?
  • The Constitution does not specify an appointment process, leaving it to the Executive.
• The Bench also noted that institutions should be trusted but agreed to examine the petition.

Broader Implications

• Judicial Precedents on Institutional Independence:
  • The Supreme Court has previously intervened in Election Commission appointments (2023) and CBI Director selection to ensure independence.
  • A similar move in the CAG’s case could set a precedent for reforms in other constitutional appointments.
• Potential for Reforms:
  • If the Court rules in favor of the petitioner, it could lead to:
    • A structured appointment mechanism with transparency.
    • Greater accountability and trust in the auditing process.
• Separation of Powers Concern:
  • Critics may argue that judicial intervention in executive appointments could violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
  • A delicate balance must be struck between judicial oversight and executive prerogative.

Way Forward

• The case could lead to a landmark judgment affecting financial accountability in governance.
• If the Court recommends reforms, Parliament may need to legislate a new appointment process.
• Regardless of the outcome, the debate highlights the urgent need for strengthening the independence of constitutional bodies.