The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India for initiating an audit of the Ajmer Sharif Dargah without following due procedure. In a stern observation, the court remarked, “You better hold your hands,” while questioning the legality and intent behind the audit order, reported the LawBeat.
Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the matter, was hearing a petition filed by Anjuman Moinia Fakhira Chistiya Khuddam Khwaja Sahib Syedzagdan Dargah Sharif, challenging the CAG’s directive to audit the religious institution’s accounts from 2022–23 to 2026–27.
The petition, represented by Advocate Atul Agarwal, accused the CAG of bypassing statutory procedures. It pointed out that no audit terms were communicated to the Dargah and that the President’s approval, required under Section 20 of the CAG (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971, had not been obtained. Agarwal also revealed that the audit team had already been formed and had visited the Dargah’s office without prior intimation.
Further, the petition highlighted that the Ministry of Minority Affairs had already exercised administrative control over the Dargah’s assets and funds, rendering the CAG’s involvement unnecessary and arbitrary. It was also argued that a pending petition challenging the Ministry’s March 15, 2024, order was being undermined by the Centre’s reliance on a January 30 communication from the Finance Ministry, authorising the CAG’s intervention.
During the proceedings, the court questioned CAG’s counsel, Advocate Pavan Duggal, asking whether the audit had already started. Justice Datta emphasized that the Dargah had the legal right to make a representation before the audit, a right which had not yet materialized due to the absence of a formal audit notice.
The judge made it clear that he was inclined to stay the audit order and directed the CAG to clarify its position by May 7. The next hearing, initially scheduled for May 20, was accordingly brought forward.
The court’s sharp remarks have raised serious questions about the CAG’s approach in dealing with religious institutions and adherence to procedural norms.
