“Have To Trust…”: Top Court’s Question For Centre On Auditor’s Appointment

The Supreme Courtroom has sought the Centre’s response to a petition looking for a revision in guidelines governing the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor Basic (CAG). The petition seeks a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India to decide on the nationwide auditor. At the moment, the President appoints the CAG. The CAG can solely be faraway from workplace by way of a course of or on grounds as a prime court docket decide.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, showing for the petitioner Centre for Public Curiosity Litigation, advised the court docket that the CAG is “now not thought of unbiased”.

When Justice Surya Kant questioned in regards to the “deviations”, Mr Bhushan pointed to fewer stories and stalled audits. The court docket then pointed to Article 148 of the Structure, which states that the President shall appoint the CAG “by warrant below his hand and seal”. Mr Bhushan identified that the court docket had intervened within the case of the CBI chief’s appointment and in addition the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner. Justice Kant then stated, “We’ve to belief our establishments.”

The bench, additionally comprising Justice N Kotiswar Singh, famous, “Typically we’ve got nice misconceptions about independence.” Mr Bhushan pointed to the highest court docket verdict within the Election Fee case, which had stated the panel appointing the ballot physique members should comprise the Prime Minister, Chief of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India. The court docket had reasoned that leaving the panel’s composition to the Govt can be detrimental to the well being of the democracy. The Centre later tweaked the foundations, eradicating the Chief Justice of India from the panel and including a minister. The court docket is now listening to challenges to this transfer.

When Mr Bhushan raised the Election Fee case ruling, the bench replied that the matter was topic to a legislation made by Parliament.

Referring to the CAG appointment, the bench stated, “When the Structure has offered unbridled energy of appointment, to what extent can the court docket intervene and rewrite it?” Justice Kant then sought the Centre’s reply and stated the case could have to be heard by a three-judge bench.