 |
|
The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), a Non-Governmental Organisation, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, raising significant concerns about the selection process of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. The core argument of the PIL is that the current process, where the appointment of the CAG rests solely with the executive branch of the government and the Prime Minister, compromises the independence of the CAG's office. The petitioner argues that this practice is not only violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality and protection against non-discrimination, but also undermines the basic structure of the Constitution, which is a fundamental tenet of Indian constitutional law. The independence of the CAG is crucial for ensuring accountability and transparency in the financial dealings of the government. As the apex auditor of the country, the CAG is responsible for scrutinizing government expenditures, receipts, and transactions, ensuring that public funds are used efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with the law. Without genuine independence, the CAG's ability to perform this critical function is severely curtailed, potentially leading to unchecked corruption and mismanagement of public resources. The PIL's challenge to the existing appointment process underscores the importance of safeguarding the integrity and autonomy of constitutional bodies like the CAG.
The petitioner’s reliance on Article 14 of the Constitution is particularly noteworthy. Article 14 enshrines the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for all citizens. CPIL argues that the current appointment process for the CAG is discriminatory because it grants undue advantage to the executive branch, allowing the Prime Minister to unilaterally decide who holds this crucial constitutional post. This lack of transparency and consultation, according to the petitioner, creates a system where the CAG is beholden to the executive, rather than to the Constitution and the people of India. The argument that the existing process violates the basic structure of the Constitution is even more profound. The basic structure doctrine, which has evolved through landmark Supreme Court judgments, holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by parliamentary amendments. These features include democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law. CPIL contends that the independence of constitutional bodies like the CAG is an integral part of the basic structure, as it is essential for ensuring the effective functioning of democracy and the rule of law. By allowing the executive to control the appointment of the CAG, the current process undermines the separation of powers, which is a cornerstone of the basic structure.
The PIL proposes a specific solution to address these concerns: the establishment of an independent and neutral selection committee for the appointment of the CAG. This committee, as envisioned by the petitioner, would comprise three key individuals: the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The inclusion of the Leader of the Opposition and the CJI is designed to ensure a more balanced and impartial selection process, preventing the executive from exercising undue influence. The Leader of the Opposition, representing the interests of the opposition parties, would provide a crucial check on the Prime Minister's power. The CJI, as the head of the judiciary, would bring legal expertise and impartiality to the selection process. By requiring consultation with these three individuals, the PIL aims to create a system where the appointment of the CAG is based on merit, integrity, and competence, rather than political considerations. This would significantly enhance the independence and credibility of the CAG's office, strengthening its ability to hold the government accountable.
Furthermore, the PIL seeks directions from the Supreme Court to ensure transparency in the selection process. Specifically, the petitioner requests that all details and documents related to the selection of the CAG be made public. This demand for transparency is rooted in the principle of open government, which is essential for promoting accountability and public trust. By making the selection process transparent, the government would be demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that the CAG is appointed in a fair and impartial manner. The petitioner draws a parallel to a previous direction issued by the Supreme Court concerning the appointment of Central Information Commission (CIC) members under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). In that case, the Court had ordered the government to disclose information related to the selection of CIC members, recognizing the importance of transparency in the appointment of individuals to bodies that play a crucial role in upholding citizens' rights to information. The CPIL argues that the same principle should apply to the selection of the CAG, given the CAG's vital role in ensuring financial accountability and transparency.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), is a landmark legislation that empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities. The RTI Act is based on the principle that transparency is essential for good governance and accountability. By seeking to make the selection process for the CAG transparent, the PIL aligns with the spirit of the RTI Act. The disclosure of information related to the selection process would allow citizens to scrutinize the process and hold the government accountable for its decisions. This would enhance public trust in the CAG and strengthen its ability to perform its constitutional duties. The current system lacks such transparency, potentially leading to appointments based on political considerations rather than merit. This undermines the very purpose of the CAG, which is to act as an independent watchdog of the government's finances.
The significance of the CAG's role in a democratic society cannot be overstated. The CAG is responsible for auditing the accounts of the Union government, the state governments, and various public sector undertakings. This audit function is crucial for ensuring that public funds are used efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with the law. The CAG's reports are submitted to the Parliament and state legislatures, where they are examined by committees of legislators. These committees use the CAG's findings to hold the government accountable for its financial performance. The CAG's reports also serve as a valuable source of information for the public, allowing citizens to understand how their tax money is being spent. Without an independent and effective CAG, there is a risk that government finances will be mismanaged or that corruption will go unchecked.
The Supreme Court's decision on this PIL will have far-reaching implications for the independence and functioning of the CAG. If the Court accepts the petitioner's arguments and directs the government to establish an independent selection committee, it would significantly strengthen the CAG's ability to hold the government accountable. This would be a major victory for transparency and good governance. On the other hand, if the Court rejects the PIL, it would send a message that the executive branch has unchecked power to appoint the CAG, which could undermine the CAG's independence and credibility. The Court's decision will be closely watched by constitutional experts, political analysts, and civil society organizations. The outcome of this case will have a significant impact on the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, and on the overall health of Indian democracy.
The arguments presented in the PIL reflect a growing concern about the erosion of institutional independence in India. In recent years, there have been several instances where the independence of constitutional bodies has been questioned. For example, there have been concerns about the independence of the Election Commission of India, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Reserve Bank of India. These concerns have led to calls for greater transparency and accountability in the appointment and functioning of these bodies. The PIL filed by CPIL is part of this broader movement to protect institutional independence and strengthen the rule of law in India. The judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding these institutions, and the Supreme Court's decision on this PIL will be a critical test of its commitment to protecting the independence of constitutional bodies.
In conclusion, the PIL filed by CPIL before the Supreme Court raises fundamental questions about the independence and functioning of the CAG. The petitioner's arguments, based on Article 14 of the Constitution and the basic structure doctrine, highlight the importance of ensuring that the CAG is appointed in a fair, transparent, and impartial manner. The PIL's proposal for an independent selection committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, offers a potential solution to address these concerns. The Supreme Court's decision on this case will have significant implications for the future of the CAG and for the overall health of Indian democracy. The case underscores the critical need to protect the independence of constitutional bodies and to ensure that they are able to perform their duties without fear of political interference. The focus on transparency in the selection process, mirroring provisions of the RTI Act, emphasizes the importance of open government and public accountability in a democratic society. The ultimate resolution of this PIL will serve as a benchmark for the protection of institutional integrity and the upholding of constitutional principles in India.
Source: PIL before Supreme Court questions CAG selection process, says CAG office no longer independent