Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1904
High Court of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ.
N. Gopalaswami & Others
Versus
The Union of India & Another
WP(C) Nos. 4653 & 4619 of 2013
Decided on: 13-08-2014
For the Appearing Parties:Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Prashant Bhushan & Pranav Sachdeva, Suman, G. E. Vahanvati, AG with Paras Kuhad & Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Jatan Singh, Sumeet Pushkarna, Gaurav Sharma, Soayib Qureshi, Kartikey Mahajan, Devdutt Kamat, Anoopam Prasad, Tara Narula, Nizam Pasha & Sania Husaini, Amit Sibal with Amrinder Singh, Advocates.
The appointment of the CAG did not violate the principles of institutional integrity and was not arbitrary.
Headnote:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) of India. The petitioners contended that the appointment violated the principles of institutional integrity and was arbitrary. The Court held that the appointment did not violate the principles of institutional integrity and was not arbitrary. The Court also held that a writ of quo warranto did not lie for quashing the appointment of the respondent No. 2 to the post of CAG.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) of India on the grounds that it violated the principles of institutional integrity and was arbitrary. The petitioners contended that the respondent No. 2 was involved in defence procurements in his capacity as the Director General of Defence Acquisitions and as the Defence Secretary, and that this would create a conflict of interest when he prepared audit reports in respect of the defence procurements. The petitioners also contended that the appointment was arbitrary as it was made without following a transparent selection procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 did not violate the principles of institutional integrity. The Court noted that the respondent No. 2 had a comprehensive knowledge of the entire administration and that there was no evidence to suggest that he lacked integrity. The Court also held that the appointment was not arbitrary. The Court noted that the respondent No. 2 was appointed following a well-established procedure and that there was no evidence to suggest that the procedure was not followed.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the CAG violated the principles of institutional integrity.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the CAG did not violate the principles of institutional integrity. The Court noted that the respondent No. 2 had a comprehensive knowledge of the entire administration and that there was no evidence to suggest that he lacked integrity. The Court also held that the appointment was not arbitrary. The Court noted that the respondent No. 2 was appointed following a well-established procedure and that there was no evidence to suggest that the procedure was not followed.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the CAG of India.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. These writ petitions challenge the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG). They also seek a writ, direction or order commanding the Union of India to frame a transparent selection procedure based on definite criteria and to constitute a broad based non-partisan selection committee, which, after calling for applications and nominations, would recommend to the President of India, the most suitable person for appointment as the CAG. Both these petitions raise common issues and questions and are, therefore, being disposed of together.
I. The challenge and the petitioners’ submissions
2. The appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the CAG has been challenged on two grounds. First of all, his appointment is said to have violated the principles of institutional integrity as contemplated in the Supreme Court decisions – (i) Centre for PIL v. Union of India : (2011) 4 SCC 1 (known as the ‘CVC case‘); and (ii) State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok: (2013) 5 SCC 1 (known as ‘the Punjab PSC case‘). It is contended on behalf of the petitioners and, in particular, the petitioner in WP(C) 4653/2013 that the respondent No. 2 was involved in defence procurements in his capacity as the Director General of Defence Acquisitions and as the audits conducted by the CAG involve a large part of defence purchases, the respondent No. 2 would have an apparent bias in respect of purchases in which the respondent No. 2 had participated in some capacity or the other. This, according to the petitioners, would violate the principle of institutional integrity. The second ground for challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the CAG is that the appointment was done in an arbitrary manner which lacked transparency. There was no specific criteria for selecting a person suitable to be appointed as the CAG and there was no short-listing committee. Reliance was, once again, placed on the CVC case (supra) and the Punjab PSC case (supra). Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another.: (1974) 4 SCC 3 for the proposition that the government cannot be arbitrary in any of its actions.
3. Chapter V of the Constitution of India deals with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. It comprises of four Articles (148-151). Article 148 stipulates that there shall be a Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, who shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and shall only be removed from office in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Article 149 spells out the duties and powers of the CAG. Article 150 specifies the forms of accounts of the Union and of the States. Article 151, inter alia, provides that the reports of the CAG, relating to the accounts of the Union, shall be submitted to the President, who shall cause them to be laid before each House of Parliament. The said Articles 148-151 are set out herein below:-
“148. Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.—(1) There shall be a Comptroller and Auditor-General of India who shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and shall only be removed from office in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
(2) Every person appointed to be the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
(3) The salary and other conditions of service of the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall be such as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until they are so determined, shall be as specified in the Second Schedule:
Provided that neither the salary of a Comptroller and Auditor-General nor his rights in respect of leave of absence, pension or age of retirement shall be varied
