Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court is considering whether the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) can be disclosed publicly before being tabled in the Legislative Assembly. The issue was raised in a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the publication of CAG reports on government portals to ensure public awareness of Delhi’s financial situation before upcoming elections.

The petition, filed by Brij Mohan, a retired civil servant, seeks directions to the Central Government, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, and the CAG to publish audit reports on their respective portals. The petitioner argued that withholding the reports violates the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Association of Democratic Reforms and Another (Electoral Bond Scheme) v. Union of India and Others (2024). The judgment states: “The voters have a right to the disclosure of information which is essential for choosing the candidate for whom a vote should be cast.” It further held that transparency is integral to democratic participation and that the disclosure of information fosters informed decision-making by voters.

The CAG, represented by counsel, argued that its constitutional responsibility is limited to submitting reports to the Lieutenant Governor, who is required to table them in the Legislative Assembly. The CAG referred to Chapter 4 of the Manual of Parliamentary Procedure, which specifies: “All reports, required to be laid on the Table of the House, will be released to the Press only after they have been so laid.”

The CAG’s counsel stated that disclosure before tabling the reports would contravene established parliamentary procedure. The submission noted that such a release might bypass the scrutiny intended to occur within the legislature.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar recorded that the petitioner’s case is rooted in the right to information and the broader principle of transparency. Addressing the CAG’s reliance on the Manual of Parliamentary Procedure, the court noted: “The Manual of Procedure would only regulate the laying of Reports and Accounts for the purposes of discussion and debate in the House. It may not, therefore and prima facie, detract from the over-arching right to information which is asserted by the writ petitioners.”

The court stated that this issue must be examined alongside constitutional provisions, including Article 151, which outlines the duties of the CAG, and the observations of the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms.

The court deferred the matter for further hearing on January 24, 2025, allowing the CAG’s counsel to place additional materials on record. These may include relevant regulations or directions that could support their argument. The bench made it clear that its observations at this stage are preliminary and that the matter requires further deliberation.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra appeared for the petitioner, assisted by advocates Vidya Sagar, Prabhav Pachory, Rishabh Dahiya, and Dennis Jacob. Advocates Manisha Agrawal Narain, Amita Gupta, and Vedansh Anand appeared for the Central Government. Advocate Bani Dikshit represented the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The Delhi government was represented by Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, Additional Standing Counsel Udit Malik, and advocates Sheenu Priya, Rima Rao, Palak Sharma, and Atik Gill.

Case Title: Brij Mohan v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 134/2025
Bench: Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

[Read/Download order]