Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Seeking Independent Committee Including CJI For Appointment Of CAG

The Supreme Court today heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) seeking that the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) be made by an independent committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, and the Chief Justice of India.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh issued notice in the PIL and suggested that the matter should be taken up for hearing by a 3-Judge Bench.

During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CPIL, argued that in recent times the CAG has lost its independence, citing instances where the government failed to table all reports prepared by the CAG and even suppressed certain findings, as seen in Maharashtra, where reports were reportedly withheld ahead of elections.

Bhushan contended that such practices have eroded public confidence in the institution and called for a robust mechanism to ensure its impartiality. He referred to comments made by prominent voices, including those of Dr. Ambedkar and even a UN General Assembly Resolution from 2011, to underscore his concerns.

Justice Surya Kant, however, noted that while the Court has previously declined to intervene in the appointment process for the CAG, the broader issue of maintaining institutional independence remains critical.

“We have to trust our institutions, but we must also ensure that safeguards are in place. If the appointment process is left solely to the government, questions arise regarding the true independence of the CAG,” he remarked.

Justice Kant said, "Probably sometimes we have a wrong conception about the independence part.... Constitutional protection is there...in case of CAG, there is a vast difference in the scheme...Where the constitution has provided an unbridled power of appointment, should, and to what extent, can the Court rewrite the provision?"

To this, Bhushan contended, "The question is whether just the safeguard against removal is sufficient to guarantee independence?"

"This argument was specifically rejected by the constituent assembly; there someone argued that CAG be higher than the judiciary," Justice Kant said.

The Bench indicated that the matter may be heard by a three-judge bench or even a constitutional bench, considering the significance of the issue.

Bhushan requested a short date in the matter. "My lord may give a short date, please. These issues have become very important, considering the ground reality," he submitted.

The PIL prays for the following:

a) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction declaring the practise of appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) solely by the Executive and the Prime Minister as being violative of Article 14 and Basic Structure of the Constitution;

b) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction mandating that the Comptroller And Auditor General Of India (CAG) shall be appointed by the President of India in consultation with an independent and neutral selection committee comprising of the Prime Minister of India, Leader of the Opposition and the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India;

c) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents to forthwith place all details and documents regarding the persons being proposed to be made CAG in the public domain in like manner as it has been directed to do with reference to judicial appointments made to Central Information Commission vide judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors Writ Petition No.436 of 2018, (2019) 18 SCC 246;

Cause Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 194/2025; Diary No. 8257/2025]