New Delhi, Oct 1 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a petition that contended that the CAG was not mandated to go into policy decisions of the government and arrive at presumptive losses.
Pointing out that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) should not be “confused or compared with a ‘munimji’, the apex court bench of Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Anil R. Dave said that the “CAG should not be construed as an auditor of the central government’s accounts or balance sheet”.
“You have to see the scheme of the things,” Justice Lodha said.
The apex court held that the CAG was something more than an auditor of a company or corporation and could comment on the efficacy of the government’s policy decisions.
Petitioner economist Arvind Gupta contended that the CAG exceeded the brief of constitutional mandate by commenting on policy choices of the government in arriving at presumptive losses running into lakhs of crores of rupees in reports on civil aviation, the power sector and the allocation of coal blocks.
The court said that the CAG could not be constrained by mere labels of jurisdiction and it could look into the efficiency and efficacy of government decisions.
Seeking the court to declare ultra vires the regulation authorising the CAG to undertake performance audit, petitioner’s counsel Santosh Paul said the performance audit was beyond the constitutional authority given to the auditor.
Paul contended that the regulations empowering the CAG to conduct performance audit were violative of the principles of separation of power under the constitution.
“It is submitted that even the judiciary is not permitted to conduct a review of the policy decisions of the government in view of the constitutional scheme,” Paul said.
Justice Lodha said: “You are more concerned by the nomenclature than the content you are more obsessed by performance audit. Will the label take away the powers that were vested by the constitution or statute?”
“How can you say that the CAG has transgressed into the functions of other organs of the state,” Justice Lodha said, adding that “even if an opinion is given by the CAG which is strictly not in conformity with its role, then parliament would look into it”.
Justice Lodha said that upon scrutiny, parliament could accept, reject or partially accept the CAG report.
The court, while rejecting the petition, said that if the CAG exceeded his constitutional and statutory mandate, parliament could say so while going into the audit reports.
