RAS question
The distinction between the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) and the Attorney General (AG) includes:
Correct answer: (A) C&AG has security of tenure (removable like SC judge); AG holds office during the pleasure of the President.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has security of tenure and is removable like a Supreme Court judge, while the Attorney General holds office during the pleasure of the President.
Explanation
Article 148 gives the Comptroller and Auditor General institutional protection: the CAG is appointed by the President and can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. That means removal is tied to proved misbehaviour or incapacity and requires an address by both Houses of Parliament with the required special majority. Article 76 places the Attorney General on a different footing. The AG is appointed by the President and holds office during the President's pleasure, so the Constitution does not give the AG a fixed tenure or the judge-like removal shield available to the CAG. This is why option A captures the real constitutional distinction.
Why the other options are wrong
- (B) It reverses the constitutional position: the CAG, not the Attorney General, has judge-like protection from removal, while the AG holds office during the President's pleasure.
- (C) It ignores Article 148, which gives the CAG express constitutional protection by linking removal to the procedure and grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge.
- (D) It treats two unequal offices alike, although Article 148 protects the CAG's tenure and Article 76 leaves the Attorney General's tenure to the President's pleasure.
Concept
This tests constitutional offices and their independence, especially the difference between audit accountability and the Union's legal advisory function. RAS repeatedly asks such comparisons because tenure and removal provisions reveal how the Constitution protects, or does not protect, institutional independence.