'We've To Trust Our Institutions': Supreme Court On Plea Seeking Independent Method To Appoint CAG; Issues Notice To Centre

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union Government on a petition seeking an independent and neutral method to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

The PIL filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) sought a direction that the CAG appointment be made by an independent committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. The petitioner argued that the present system of the Union Government solely selecting the CAG hampered their independence.

"In recent times, the CAG has lost its independence," Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the CPIL, submitted at the very outset.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh asked if there was any instance of "deviation" in recent years so as to doubt the independence of CAG.

Bhushan submitted that the CAG reports have been coming down and the staff strength was declining. The audits of the States ruled by the BJP are being stalled, he added, saying that it was an "unfortunate development." He cited Maharashtra as an instance. Bhushan said that the Supreme Court has intervened regarding the appointments of CBI Director and the Chief Election Commissioner to ensure their independence, and similar directions are necessary for the CAG as well.

If appointments are controlled by the Government, their independence will be disturbed, Bhushan said. "We have to trust our institutions also," Justice Kant replied. The Judge referred to the Constitutional provision (Article 148) which specify that the CAG has the same level of protection as a Supreme Court Judge regarding removal from office.

"The question is whether just the safeguard against removal is sufficient to guarantee independence?," Bhushan submitted. He pointed out though the Election Commissioners also have the same protection, the Supreme Court found it to be inadequate to protect their independence, and hence directions were passed (Anoop Baranwal case)

Justice Kant however pointed out that the Constitutional provisions regarding the ECI were quite different, since it is specified that the EC appointments shall be as per a law made by the Parliament. When Article 148 of the Constitution clearly allows the President to appoint the CAG, can the Court interfere to specify a different procedure, the Judge asked.

"Where the Constitution has provided an unbridled power of appointment, should and to what extent the Court rewrite the provision?," Justice Kant asked.

Ultimately, the bench agreed to issue notice to the Centre, seeking their response. The bench tagged the petition with another petition seeking similar relief. Justice Kant observed that the matter is required to be heard by a three-judge bench. Bhushan stated that even a Constitution Bench can also hear the matter.

Case : Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 194/2025