Because of the momentous events of the last few weeks an important and unfortunate development has gone unnoticed. The Supreme Court of India is reported to have rejected a long-pending petition seeking the prescription of criteria and procedures for the appointment of the comptroller and auditor general (CAG) of India. There had been a similar petition some years ago by the late H. D. Shourie, and it had failed.

All of us know how important an independent Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) is in a democratic system. The CAG is our SAI. How then is that position to be filled? To state the obvious, a careful selection of a suitable person has to be made; and those two terms imply criteria and procedures. In any case, it is clear that some kind of selection is in fact taking place, but no one outside a charmed circle in the government knows what is going on. To all of us, the matter is shrouded in mystery until suddenly one day an announcement appears that X has been appointed as the CAG of India. What confidence can anyone have in a supreme enforcer of public accountability appointed in such a supremely non-accountable and opaque manner?

Given the fault-finding nature of the audit function, the bureaucracy and the political levels involved in the selection cannot be expected to be enthusiastic about appointing someone who has a reputation for strictness, independence and fierce integrity. They may also be tempted to regard the position of CAG as a plum post to be offered to a favoured retiring bureaucrat. If such tendencies are to be corrected, then it seems clear that the selection should be open to public scrutiny, and that some from outside the executive government should be associated with the selection. A committee procedure is in place for the selection of the chairman and members of the National Human Rights Commission and of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. What argument can there be for not adopting a similar procedure for the selection of the CAG?

... contd.