The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to a petition seeking a revision in rules governing the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The petition seeks a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India to choose the national auditor. Currently, the President appoints the CAG. The CAG can only be removed from office through a process or on grounds as a top court judge.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner Centre for Public Interest Litigation, told the court that the CAG is "no longer considered independent".
When Justice Surya Kant questioned about the "deviations", Mr Bhushan pointed to fewer reports and stalled audits. The court then pointed to Article 148 of the Constitution, which states that the President shall appoint the CAG "by warrant under his hand and seal". Mr Bhushan pointed out that the court had intervened in the case of the CBI chief's appointment and also the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner. Justice Kant then said, "We have to trust our institutions."
The bench, also comprising Justice N Kotiswar Singh, noted, "Sometimes we have great misconceptions about independence." Mr Bhushan pointed to the top court verdict in the Election Commission case, which had said the panel appointing the poll body members must comprise the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India. The court had reasoned that leaving the panel's composition to the Executive would be detrimental to the health of the democracy. The Centre later tweaked the rules, removing the Chief Justice of India from the panel and adding a minister. The court is now hearing challenges to this move.
When Mr Bhushan raised the Election Commission case ruling, the bench replied that the matter was subject to a law made by Parliament.
Referring to the CAG appointment, the bench said, "When the Constitution has provided unbridled power of appointment, to what extent can the court intervene and rewrite it?" Justice Kant then sought the Centre's reply and said the case may need to be heard by a three-judge bench.
