New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) Shashi Kant Sharma has an "unblemished record" as a civil servant and his appointment to the post has been made as per the practice being adopted in past.
"He (CAG) is having an unblemished service record as a civil servant," Attorney General G E Vahanvati, appearing for the Centre, told a bench of acting Chief Justice B D Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru.
The law officer objected to the submission of Prashant Bhushan, appearing for former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami and eight other eminent citizens, that the present CAG has the "greatest degree" of conflict of interest in the country as he had been an "integral" part of defence deals during 2003 to 2013 which could be the subject matter of scrutiny in future by the top auditing body.
The bench, which has so far not issued a notice, is hearing two separate PILs filed by the former CEC and others and advocate M L Sharma on the issue.
During the hearing, Bhushan said the appointment of the CAG violated the principles of "institutional integrity" as held by the apex court in the Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas case.
The Centre's plea that the CAGs, in the past had been appointed from among the public servants does not make the appointment valid and constitutional, he argued. "The CAG, which is not a multi-member body, will have to sign the audit reports pertaining to the defence deals and hence, he can neither act dispassionately and nor recuse in the event of conflict of interest," the lawyer said.
The appointment procedure is not transparent and is rather an act of arbitrariness, he said, adding that earlier, till 1978, the CAGs were appointed from among the officers of Indian Audit and Accounts Services.
Earlier, the court had agreed to hear the PILs and asked the Centre to file its response by August 8. The PILs allege the Union of India has arbitrarily appointed the CAG, keeping aside all established practices provided by the Supreme Court in its judgement relating to the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas and the appointment made in the Punjab Public Service Commission.
Comments
0 comment