New Delhi, Mar 17 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), seeking a more independent and transparent process for appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

The PIL sought the formation of a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India to oversee the appointment.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh issued notice on the plea and suggested that the matter be referred to a three-judge Bench for further deliberation.

During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CPIL, argued that the CAG’s independence has been compromised in recent years.

He cited instances where the government allegedly withheld CAG reports, including cases in Maharashtra where findings were reportedly suppressed ahead of elections.

Bhushan asserted that such actions erode public confidence in the institution and necessitate a robust mechanism to ensure impartiality.

He also referenced historical perspectives, including remarks made by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and a 2011 United Nations General Assembly resolution emphasizing the importance of independent audit institutions.

Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the gravity of the issue but noted that the Court had previously refrained from interfering in the CAG appointment process. However, Justice Kant underscored the importance of maintaining institutional independence.

"We have to trust our institutions, but we must also ensure that safeguards are in place. If the appointment process is left solely to the government, questions arise regarding the true independence of the CAG," Justice Kant remarked.

Justice Kant further observed, "Sometimes, we have a wrong conception about independence. Constitutional protections exist, but where the Constitution has provided unbridled power of appointment, should the Court intervene and to what extent can it rewrite the provision?"

Bhushan countered by questioning whether mere safeguards against removal were sufficient to ensure the CAG’s independence.

The Bench indicated that given the constitutional significance of the issue, it might be referred to a three-judge Bench or even a larger constitutional Bench.

The PIL sought a declaration that the current practice of appointing the CAG solely by the Executive and the Prime Minister violates Article 14 and the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

It also sought a direction mandating that the CAG be appointed by the President in consultation with an independent selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

A writ of Mandamus directing the government to disclose details and documents regarding CAG appointments in the public domain, similar to the disclosure mandated for judicial appointments in Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 246.

Bhushan requested an expedited hearing, urging the Court to set a short date given the significance of the issue in the current political and administrative context.

The Supreme Court will hear the matter on a later date, which is yet to be fixed.

UNI SNG CS