NEW DELHI: The Narendra Modi government on Wednesday curtly told the Supreme Court not to encroach into executive’s domain and suggested that judiciary would do better by devising ways and means to tackle massive pendency of cases.

The suggestion came from attorney general Mukul Rohatgi during the hearing of a PIL filed by eminent persons questioning the Centre’s decision to appoint former defence secretary Shashikant Sharma as comptroller and auditor general (CAG), which audits government spending.

Petitioners’ counsel Prashant Bhushan said Sharma’s appointment as CAG could give rise to a conflict of interest situation as Sharma would now be auditing purchase of defence equipment, which were procured during his tenure as defence secretary. Several of the purchases, including VVIP helicopters from AgustaWestland, have been mired in controversy, he claimed.

A bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices A K Sikri and Arun Mishra did not accept Bhushan’s plea for examining the appointment of Sharma as CAG, a constitutional post, on mere apprehension of conflict of interest but sought the AG’s views on a suggestion to make the appointment process transparent.

READ ALSO

Parliament passes bill ending 20-year-old collegium system of judges

Judicial independence non-negotiable, efforts to take it away won't succeed: RM Lodha

Rohatgi said Sharma was a competent person and there was no allegation against his integrity and honesty. “If the court attempts to frame guidelines for appointment of CAG, it would be at the teeth of constitutional provisions. The constitutional mandate is to leave it to the executive. The CAG is appointed by the President on the aid and advice of the council of ministers headed by the prime minister. There is no role for the courts,” he said.

Bhushan said the courts had earlier laid down guidelines for appointment to constitutional posts and cited the two judgments of the apex court taking away powers of the executive to select judges. “It was rightly done to maintain independence of judiciary. A similar thing could be attempted for the appointment of CAG as it is a key post to maintain transparency in government spending and keep corruption at bay,” he said.

The AG replied, “The Supreme Court’s judgments taking away the executive’s power to select judges was completely wrong. The selection and appointment of judges for the Supreme Court and high courts was with the executive. One cannot say that the judges who were appointed by the executive prior to the judgment were not independent and that those who were appointed after the judgment were all independent.

“Some day, there will be a debate. As far as CAG post is concerned, the government has in the last 20 years appointed persons of impeccable integrity. Sharma had an exceptional career without blemish. In any way, the court’s hands are full. Its dockets are overflowing. It would be better to divert energy for tackling pendency than taking up issues relating to appointment of constitutional figures.”

However, the AG clarified that if the court’s conscience was shocked by certain appointments to constitutional posts, the SC would surely have a say in it in public interest.