In the absence of knowledge of how selections are in fact made, we can draw some inferences about the criteria from the appointments actually made. All the CAGs have been secretaries to the government of India, and the last six CAGs have been from the IAS. First, the criterion that the person to be appointed as CAG must have been a secretary to the government of India is very debatable. Secondly, a decided preference for the IAS (to put it very mildly) seems to have been operating.

Let us turn to the question of the need for a knowledge and experience of accounts and audit work. Certainly, as stated by T. T. Krishnamachari in the constituent assembly, the CAG is much more than an accountant, but it does not follow that the CAG need not be, or should not be, an accountant at all. Let us not forget the title of the post. The Constitution specifically relates his duties to the accounts of the union and the states. The audit of those accounts is the primary function of the CAG, and all other aspects and dimensions are added to it. To say that an auditor general need not be an auditor is to stand things on their head.

In general, it may be said that at the highest level, the head of any organisation or system must transcend the technicalities of that organisation or system and have the capacity for a larger and wider perspective. Would anyone proceed to argue that the foreign secretary need not be a professional diplomat, that the chairman railway board need not be from the railways, that the CJI need not have a law background, or that the chiefs of the forces need not be from those forces? How then can we ignore the professional aspect of the CAG’s work and regard the CAG as a super-manager who can get all the technical support he needs from the organisation below him?

... contd.