New Delhi: The Supreme Court sought the center’s response earlier this week for a public interest litigation, seeking transparency in the appointment process of India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
A non-profit organization, filed by the Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), accuses the Petition of political and executive intervention in the work of CAG and violates the current selection system the constitution and reduces the freedom of the situation.
The petition cites the findings made by various reports, including a series of whistleblower complaints, with allegations of corruption, delaying and silence in the government, raising concerns about the integrity of the selection process.
Show full article
The current process of appointing Theprint CAG and a deep dive into the concerns raised by the petition.
Current process of appointment
Established under Article 148 of the Constitution of India, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is an independent high-ranking body, empowered to audit the Union and State Governments of India, various government-funded bodies, Panchayati Raj Institutions and Financial Records of Public Sector (PSUS).
Constitutionally, the CAG is appointed by the President of India (Article 148), and presents all its audit reports to the President or Governor, which extends it to the Parliament or State Legislature of India (Article 151). Article 149 of the Constitution lists the duties and powers of CAG.
The CAG is a fundamental basis for ensuring government expenditure and accountability in public finance. Its report is not only a choice for academic discussion, but also a glimpse in the information required for various government bodies, which ensures transparency and questions the government on its expenses.
For appointment, the Cabinet Secretary shortlied the names of potential candidates to give to the Finance Minister, who then present the list to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then recommends a name to the President from the list, and if it is approved, the appointment is made by warrant under the President’s hand and seal.
This practice of choosing the CAG is “against the view of the Constitution to insulate the body with executive intervention”, CPIL’s petition has said.
This process also lacks parliamentary and independent inspection, which eventually becomes an arbitrary practice of the executive, it says.
The petition further notes, “The current process is being carried out through an unwritten conference, running contrary to 148–151 articles of the Constitution.” This type of process says the extreme possibility of conflict of interests, it says.
It also violates many basic things of the Constitution and causes great damage to institutional integrity, the petition said. “It is in the interest of justice to issue the directions/guidelines required to fill the vacuum in the law related to the appointment of CAG.”
Article 14 inviting
The petitioner has called for Article 14 of the Constitution, alleging violation of the original structure theory. Article 14 guarantees ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal security of laws’ to all individuals within India. This ensures that no person is arbitrarily discriminated against by the state and everyone is subject to equal laws regardless of their situation.
According to the petitioner, the appointment violates Article 14 because when the executive appoints CAG, institutional integrity is not maintained, and “CAG’s office suffers from a serious conflict of interests, and thus, is harmful to good and democracy in India.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision, where it ordered the formation of a wide-based independent and neutral selection committee for the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), the petitioner demands a similar direction for the government for the appointment of CAG.
In addition, since the government has complete control over the selection, it creates inequality and goes against the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law, it is reported.
The petition stated that the lack of an independent selection process provides uncontrolled power to the executive, guarantees fair and uniform treatment under Article 14. This is because “the pick-end method of appointment, without any purpose criteria or clearly the norms, is determined, gives wide discretion to the audit to appoint your own auditor”.
In addition, it is unequal to other-auditors as it denies the opportunity to participate in the selection process, stated in the petition.
Examples of intervention mentioned in the petition
Petitions by CPIL Secretary Kamini Jiswal, this petition also lists various incidents of political and executive intervention in CAG work.
One of them, Sri Rama Janmabhumi is about a serving CAG officer in the Board of the Construction Committee of Teertha Kshatra Trust, who says that the argument goes against the value of the constitution to keep the CAG office independent of political intervention.
In this petition, allegations of corruption in recruitment in many vacancies in CAG have also been mentioned.
Another example listed is related to the transfer of auditors responsible for alleged irregularities in central planning projects. In 2010, the 2G spectrum scam audit received a huge backlash on alleged irregularities and executive overche.
The transfer of auditors in such sensitive matters should be investigated to ensure that they do not reduce the principles of accountability, transparency and anti -corruption efforts in public spending, stated in the petition.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)