If clear criteria, full relevant information, compliance with procedures and complete openness and transparency are important in the selection of the CVC, are they not even more important in the case of the CAG?
The Supreme Court's judgment in the CVC case is a very important, path-breaking one. It prompts one to ask whether what the Supreme Court has said in this case does not have wider implications beyond this particular case. Several things become clear from the judgment in this case: the selection procedure must be open and transparent; all relevant facts and aspects must be taken into account; ‘impeccable integrity' is a sine qua non; reasons must be recorded for both the majority and minority views in the selection process. Underlying all this is the tacit assumption that the selection to high office must be guided by procedures and criteria.
The Supreme Court has been taking keen interest in the institution of the CVC. The general public and the media are also very interested in appointments to this institution. It is undoubtedly an institution of great importance. However, there is another constitutional institution of still greater importance, namely the CAG, in which, quite inexplicably, the public, the media and even the Supreme Court do not appear to take the same degree of interest. The CAG as an institution has recently come into some prominence because of its reports on the Commonwealth Games and 2G cases, but even now, it cannot be said that there is widespread and adequate appreciation of its constitutional position and the importance of what it does.
The CAG is our Supreme Audit Institution (SAI), i.e., the supreme institution for enforcing the financial accountability of the Central and State governments, other public authorities, institutions receiving substantial funds from the government, and so on. Wherever public funds are involved, the CAG has a role to play. The crucial importance of this high functionary in our constitutional system can hardly be over-stated. Several distinguished leaders of the past (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Dr. Radhakrishnan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and so on) have attested to this, and extolled the virtues of this high office. In particular, Dr. Ambedkar's remark in the Constituent Assembly that the duties of this functionary are even more important than those of the judiciary has been repeatedly cited. The status and independence of the CAG is ensured through a variety of provisions, which need not be detailed here. An important point to bear in mind is that the CAG, at the time of appointment, takes an oath similar to that taken by the judges of the Supreme Court, that is to say, to “uphold the Constitution and the laws”, whereas a Minister has to swear an oath only to act “in accordance with the Constitution.”
What then is the current system — the criteria, the definition of the field of choice, the procedures — for the selection of this high constitutional functionary? The short answer is that there seems to be none; at any rate, none that anybody knows of. The processes are entirely internal to the government machinery; no one outside has any knowledge of what criteria are applied, how names are short-listed, and how a final selection is made. It is not the intention of this article to imply any reflections on any of the appointments made so far. In particular, this writer holds the current CAG in high regard. However, it needs to be said that if some out of the eleven CAGs appointed so far have been good, that must be attributed to accident, not design.
Leaving past selections aside, let us consider how future selections should be made. The present ‘system' leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Cabinet Secretary, the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself (with a certain limited role for the President thereafter). This is no system at all. However good and noble the individuals concerned may be, the process is bound to be influenced by a wide range of extraneous considerations (i.e., considerations unrelated to the requirements of the job) which need not be gone into here.
One is not saying that the internal bureaucratic selection process is entirely ungoverned by any criteria; perhaps seniority, a good record, extent of relevant experience, and so on, are gone into. It would be very strange if they were not, but one simply does not know. A criterion that seems to have come to be applied over the years is that the person to be selected should have served as a Secretary to the Government of India. As there are not many non-IAS Secretaries, this criterion virtually limits the field of choice to retiring IAS Secretaries. Even out of that limited field of choice, there are no discernible selection criteria, judging by the results.
The question arises: if clear criteria, full relevant information, compliance with procedures and complete openness and transparency are so important in the case of the selection of the CVC, are they not even more important in the case of the position of CAG? It is of course true that the CVC Act lays down a committee procedure (the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha) for the selection, whereas the CAG's Act does not. However, that idea was of fairly recent origin and was incorporated in the Act relating to the National Human Rights Commission and in the CVC Act. The committee procedure was not laid down in either the CAG's Act or the legislation relating to the Election Commission. That does not mean that the committee procedure is good for the CVC and the NHRC, but not good for the CAG or the CEC. The principle of a broad-based selection committee is even more important in the case of the CAG (and CEC) than in that of the CVC. The lacuna in the older laws needs to be remedied. The actual composition of the Committee will of course have to vary from post to post. For instance, the selection committee for the CAG will have to include the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
As for criteria, the need for them is self-evident. Selection to any senior positions in government, and particularly for high constitutional positions, cannot be arbitrary; they have to based on a careful spelling out of the job requirements, and going beyond that, on a visualising of what kind of person we are looking for. It is simply inconceivable that such appointments can be made without any criteria. The Selection Committee will definitely have to go by certain criteria and fields of choice.
This article does not propose to spell out the author's ideas (set forth elsewhere) on the appropriate field of choice and the selection criteria to be adopted. After careful consideration and wide-ranging consultations, these can be laid down in the CAG's Act through amendments. (Apart from other things, impeccable integrity is surely as crucial for the CAG as for the CVC.)
It may seem to some of the readers that this article is arguing the obvious. Curiously enough, it does not seem to be so obvious. Two writ petitions to the Supreme Court asking for the laying down of criteria and procedures for the selection of the CAG, one by the late H.D. Shourie of Common Cause and the other by B.P. Mathur, a retired Deputy CAG, failed. Speaking subject to correction, the Supreme Court seemed uninterested in the subject and somewhat reluctant to enter into it. The contrast between that attitude and the keen interest shown by the Supreme Court in the CVC case seems difficult to understand. Would not the Supreme Court like to extend the excellent principles that it has laid down in the CVC case to other high constitutional positions?
This articles has come not a day too soon. In fact the functining of the CVC and CAG should be complimentary and supplementary to each other. But it is hardly so. Over the years the power and authority of the CAG's institution has considerably eroded. My personal experience has been that most of the CAGs were functioning with an inborn feeling that they were subordinate to the Government, totally ignoring the constitutional status and protection given to this Authority. If my memory is right, till 1975, CAG used to be the final authority to give a proper interpretation on any orders passed by the Government having financial implications. Thereafter, the role was reversed. Now the CAG seeks clarification of DOPT for any doubts arising out of pay fixation of even the employees of its own institution. The CAG does not have any power and authority to protect the interest and career benefits of its own officers. Most often, the proposals sent by the CAG has been rejected by the Government at the level of a Dy. Secretary or Jt. Secretary. The person occupying the post of CAG has been generally not taking keen interest in the duties and functions of the institution but has been performing as a countersigning authority. If the selection process is streamlined and a person with impeccable integrity and unblemished record of performance is appointed through a transparent procedure, the corruption in our country can be brought down at least by 75%. In my view 75% of the total corruption in our country is perpetrated by the bureacrates - politician nexus and in each of them, the CAG would be able to effectively check the malpractices if he a person with impeccable integrity, appointed through a transparent selection procedure as envisaged by the H'ble Supreme Court in the appointment of CVC. More serious discussions and debates should be there in this regard involving the enlightened public in the larger interest of our democracy.
The process of appointment of constitutional heads has to be made more transparent. The system followed by the US, where in the person nominated by the president has to be approved by the senate committee. In our case we need to adopt a similar policy. The person has to be selected by a committee similar to the one adopted for the selection of CVC. After that he has to present himself before a JPC who will ratify the appointment.This procedure has to be adopted for all sensitive posts. The list should consist of Chiefs of EC, CAG, PAC, NHRC, CBI, NSA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Whilst the article is good and provides food for thought, it would be useful for the public, to know from a Constitutional perspective, what is the exact role/terms of reference of the high office of CAG, CVC and CEC. It would then be clear to the public whether persons suitable for the post are appointed and whether such officials are fulfilling the objectives prescribed by the Constitution of India during their tenure.
I go with the authors view. Appointing C J Thomas as a CVC was completely absurd . This shows that there is no groundwork been done for appointing one of the critical post. The issue isn't solved even after the apex court verdict, still Thomas says with a vehemence that he has a impeccable integrity. And it is annihilating the people's mind as he has given a petition to our President. This shows that the ineffciency of our law and how easily one can get salvaged from wrong doing however big the trial may be.
One cannot but agree with the views expressed in the article . The constitution - makers provided for three autonomous institutions to keep Indian democracy on track .These are 1)CEC , 2)Public Service Commissions and 3)CAG . In order to make these institutions work effectively and impartially it is necessary to appoint the heads and members of these institutions with utmost care and transparency .
The author is absolutely right in bringing to light the issue relating to the selection of CAG.Its been 150 years since the inception of the first Accountant General of India and the present post of the CAG is the legacy of that office and continues to be governed by more or less outdated mandate,laws and procedures. The CAG's DPC Act was enacted in 1971 before the emergency of 1975 to curb its powers and functions. Accordingly the Union Govt Accounts were taken out from its ambit and placed under a different service headed by the CGA. It's high time the Govt streamlines the selection,laws and procedure and mandate of the CAG with respect to the contemporary times to uphold the dignity and honor of such a prestigious institution..
The article by Mr. Ramaswamy R. Iyer is very interesting. In the light of the very intense public focus on the procedure laid down for the appointment of the CVC, this article seeks to bring out the contrast in the procedure for appointment of other constitutional appointees like the CEC and the CAG. The author has also described the vast responsibility of the CAG and has also mentioned about Dr. Ambedkar's remark that the duties of the CAG are even more important than those of the judiciary. The author has himself informed that there were two writ petitions to the Supreme Court asking for the laying down of criteria and procedures for the selection of the CAG. The SC had, then, considered that the existing procedure for the appointment of the CAG was good and was not interested in change. Times have since changed and it is only correct and appropriate that appointments to these constitutional positions are made by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Minister concerned and the Leader of the Opposition (or the Chairman of the PAC for the position of CAG). In the present scenario, the Govt. must take initiatives for bringing change in the procedures for appointment of constitutional positions or the leaders of political parties must discuss the same in the parliament to bring about changes.
This is a very important and serious thing in a democracy. First and foremost thing, we as a citizen must understand that democracy is in itself not a perfect system. It is for people to make the system work. Now the thing is that in our country democracy becomes a tool for only some at the top positions to look for their self interest. Democracy only becomes successful when we truly make it transparent. After all it is the people that matter the most. So why certain things be put away from public in the name of secrecy? These important positions like CAG,CVC etc. strengthen the system only when they are free from political selfcenteredness. Now for this transparency in the appointment process is must and people have the right to know about the whole process.
Indeed, the author has raised a very valid point. these points has not been given its due importance as it needs to be on one context or the other. Now when the discrepancies are out in open, its time when we should try to look into appointment to the every echelon post. Be it CVC, CAG, NHRC and its likes. It's time when the whole selection process should be made transparent and foolproof. I would also like to draw the attention of everyone towards something more important. Though six decades have passed but we still live under laws and rules (e.g. Indian Police Act 1860, officials secrets act and many more) formulated by the colonial powers. We have multi-party system with all the party were in power directly or indirectly in some point of time. But none of our political parties have shown any zeal to replace or amend them to present conditions. So now it's time for the political parties to come out in open and give appropriate reasons for maintaining the status quo from past six decades.
Olease give more attention to V S Achuthanandan's candidature in coming election. A majority of people including youth want VS as Kerala’s CM because he is the one of the few politician who fight against corruption irrespective of Congress, CPM, BJP. Keralites have enough faith in his leadership. His protest against lottery case, Edamalayar case, palmolein case, Lavolin case are few among of them. He is a true leader with enough courage. We Keralites will pray for his health.
The author is absolutely right. However, he is beating about the bush. He should have put it bluntly, in a no nonsense manner. The Post of CAG has become a parking slot for some favourite IAS - not necessarily with 'impeccable integrity' - who is to about to be put to pasture. One can recall the CAGs like Mr AK Chanda and Mr. Bakshi from the Audit and Accounts served with far greater distinction than those picked from the hegemonistic IAS. There is absolutely no reason why the process of selecting the CAG should be as rigorous as that may be applied to the CVC and the field of choice is as wide as stated by the Supreme Court in the Thoams's case.
The article is a good one. It says there should some transparency and certain rules must be laid down for the selection of CAG as in the case of CVC. I don't know why the Supreme Court which has a higher authority of upholding the law is keeping its mouth shut in this case. Let the Supreme Court come out with an explanation. It is so sad to hear that even after two appeals, the Supreme Court has not taken any decision. the people of India believe that justice still prevails in the highest court of India. Please uphold that beleif..
An interesting and appropriate article. Kudos to 'The Hindu'. The other question is why even an IAS official being appointed to this position? Why not someone from the IA&AS cadre? This was the case since our independence and changed sometime in the 80s? Why? Food for thought. Not to take away anything from this fine group of people; but there is a specialized service for a reason. To take this to an extreme; will they appoint a 3 star Lieutenant General to be the next head of the Air Force?
The author has, to use a cliche, hit the nail right on the head. The posts of CAG and particualrly CEC should be filled in by candidates who are properly vetted and the selection should be made out of a panel of three or more candidates, by a Committee comprising members of the ruling and opposition parties. Apart from the Leader of Opposition, the Leader of the second largest party in the Opposition too may be included in the selection committee. This is absolutely necessary in the case of CEC because, it is no secret that some of the CECs had acted partially in favour of the ruling party. In fact, two days back, it was reported, the CPI(M) in W. Bengal had complained that the CEC was removing the flags of Left parties from the offices of its organisations while ignoring the huge cut-outs of Trinamool Congress leader intact. In Kerala too the CEC has unjustifiably prevented supplying Rs.2/- a kg of rice to all ration card holders, a scheme initiated a week or so before the notification for election was put out. This has been adversly commented on by even the Kerala High Court. On the other hand, the Central Railway Ministry's announcement regarding concession to girl students for Season tickets made after the notificatin of election dates was announced had not been objected to by the CEC in spite of bringing it to its notice. In short, the CEC seems to be blatantly acting at the behest of the ruling parties at the Centre. The CEC, like the judges, should act impartially, whatever his personal political views are.
Please Email the Editor