CAG Appointment: SC Issues Notice to Centre, The Probe Impact

CAG Under Scrutiny: SC Seeks Centre’s Response

The Supreme Court, on Monday, March 17, 2025, issued a notice to the Centre, seeking its response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). The PIL, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) against the Union of India, has brought the selection process of the country’s top auditing body under judicial scrutiny. 

The Supreme Court’s notice follows revelations brought to light by the PIL, which relied on investigative reports from The Probe on the matter. The Probe’s reports exposed alleged irregularities in the functioning of the C&AG office and highlighted the opaque process behind the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Representing the CPIL, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued before the court that the current practice—where the Executive, led by the Prime Minister, unilaterally appoints the CAG—violates Article 14 of the Constitution and undermines its basic structure. The PIL demands a major reform, urging the Comptroller and Auditor General of India be appointed by the President in consultation with an independent and neutral selection committee, including the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, to ensure fairness and accountability in the process.

In its order, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, directed the Union Government to respond to the PIL challenging the CAG’s appointment. The court has also linked this case with an existing writ petition filed by Anupam Kulshreshtha, which raises similar concerns. Notably, the apex court had previously issued a notice in Kulshreshtha’s petition on January 25, 2024, and that matter remains pending adjudication. 

The petition highlights the critical role of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India's office as a guardian of government finances, emphasising its importance in upholding transparency and accountability across Central and State Governments, as well as Panchayati Raj Institutions. It states, “The C&AG acts as a watchdog over government accounts and expenditure,” providing reports that fuel public debates and serve as vital resources for parliamentary committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). These reports enable scrutiny of government spending, inform policy making, ensure essential service delivery, and guide legislative drafting. However, the petition argues that the appointment process must be fair, transparent, and free from bias to preserve the CAG’s integrity. It alleges that, despite constitutional safeguards intended to shield the office from Executive overreach, political interference has increasingly crept in, jeopardising the very purpose of this constitutional body.

PIL Cites The Probe’s Reports on CAG Irregularities

The PIL further draws on a series of investigative stories by The Probe to substantiate claims of political and executive interference in the operations of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. It specifically cites The Probe’s detailed exposés, which include documentary evidence of concerning interventions. Among the issues highlighted are the abrupt stalling of a theme-based audit of a national project in 2023, where a directive from the C&AG office halted an ongoing evaluation mid-process. The petition also references The Probe’s report on the shelving of a critical performance audit on debt sustainability, raising questions about the motives behind such a decision. Additionally, it points to the sudden suspension of audits in Maharashtra ahead of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, suggesting a pattern of strategic delays.

It incorporates The Probe’s findings on alleged corruption within the constitutional body's office itself, including alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for vacant posts. Another striking revelation quoted is the involvement of a serving C&AG official on the construction committee of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, hinting at potential conflicts of interest. The Probe’s investigations into reward postings for officials who allegedly softened audit reports on high-profile cases like the Rafale Deal and the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal are also cited, alongside the transfer of auditors who uncovered irregularities in central government schemes. These instances, as laid out in the PIL, highlight an institution meant to uphold financial integrity being swayed by external pressures, bolstering the case for an overhaul of the CAG appointment process.

During his arguments in the matter, advocate Bhushan cited a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on December 22, 2011, which explicitly states that supreme audit institutions can only perform their duties objectively and effectively if they remain independent from the entities they audit and are safeguarded against external influence. This global standard, Bhushan argued, stresses upon the urgent need to insulate India’s C&AG from executive overreach to restore its credibility and efficacy.

The petition further strengthens its case with stark data, pointing to a troubling decline in the CAG’s output over recent years. It notes that the average number of audit reports tabled in Parliament has plummeted, dropping from 40 per year between 2014 and 2018 to just 22 annually between 2019 and 2023. The petition highlights specific figures: in 2023, only 18 reports were presented, compared to a low of 13 in 2018 and 15 in 2020. In contrast, during the 2010–2014 period, the C&AG maintained a healthier average of 34 reports per year. This downward trend, the PIL contends, reflects a weakening of the institution’s ability to hold the government accountable, raising serious questions about the factors—potentially including political interference—driving this decline.

PIL Calls for Transparent CAG Appointments, Citing Global Models

The petition also draws historical weight by referencing a speech delivered by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on May 30, 1949, where he described the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as "probably the most important officer in the Constitution of India." This assertion, the petition argues, underlines the foundational intent to position the C&AG as a cornerstone of democratic accountability—a principle it claims is now at risk. 

It also highlights the career of the previous CAG, Girish Chandra Murmu, who retired on November 21, 2024, noting his prior roles as Secretary to the Chief Minister of Gujarat and Principal Secretary to the Gujarat state government. This background, the petition suggests, raises concerns about potential executive proximity in the appointment process.

To further its case, the petition contrasts India’s opaque appointment mechanism with more transparent practices globally. It cites the United Kingdom, where the CAG’s appointment requires an address in the House of Commons, presented by the Prime Minister in agreement with the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. In Australia, the Governor-General appoints the C&AG with the Joint Committee on Public Accounts’ approval. The PIL points to the United States, where a committee including the Senate President and majority and minority House leaders recommends the appointee to the President, governed by Section 302 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and amendments to the General Accounting Office Act of 1980. 

In Canada, the process involves consultations with leaders of all recognised parties in both the Senate and House of Commons, while Germany requires the House of Representatives’ approval. New Zealand’s Public Audit Act of 2001 mandates the Governor-General to appoint the CAG based on House of Representatives’ recommendations. Japan operates a Board of Audit with a three-member Audit Commission, supported by a General Executive Bureau. In Sri Lanka, the Constitution stipulates that the Auditor General, a qualified auditor, be appointed by the President with Constitutional Council approval. Similarly, in Bhutan, the King appoints the Auditor General from a list of eminent persons jointly recommended by the Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, National Council Chairperson, and opposition leader.