Delhi Court Seeks CAG Response on Controversial Ajmer Dargah Audit Challenge

New Delhi [India], April 28 (ANI): On Monday, the Delhi High Court requested a response from the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding a petition contesting the CAG’s directive to audit the financial records of Ajmer Sharif Dargah. The high court indicated its inclination to halt the order due to procedural irregularities unless the CAG addresses them. The bench instructed the legal representatives involved to seek further guidance and outline their positions clearly.

The Delhi High Court is currently handling a petition that challenges the CAG' In order to conduct an audit of the accounts of Ajmer Sharif Dargah for the fiscal years from 2022-23 through 2026-27.

Justice Sachin Datta allowed the CAG until May 7 to explain its position.

The petition was submitted by Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chistiya Khuddam Khwaja Sahib Syed Zagdan Dargah Sharif, located in Ajmer, via attorney Ashish Singh.

In the course of the preliminary hearing on the early submission, Advocate Atul Agarwal, who was representing the petitioner, contended that they had not received notification regarding the specifics of the audit.

It was additionally argued that the order breaches the CAG Act, as it fails to serve the terms and conditions of the audit to the institution whose accounts are subject to examination. The act also grants the institution the right to present representations to the relevant ministry.

The legal representatives of CAG requested additional time to obtain guidance.

The group that submitted the request had challenged the March 15, 2024, decision by the Ministry of Minority Affairs to carry out an audit.

Nevertheless, the Ministry of Finance released a statement on January 30, 2025, delegating the audit responsibility to the CAG, as mentioned in the petition.

At the hearing, the judges questioned if the audit had commenced. In light of the reply submitted by the CAG, the court mentioned that it hadn’t begun. I lean towards suggesting that you seek further guidance and outline your course of action clearly.

The bench concurred with the arguments presented by the petitioner's legal representative, stating that they possess the entitlement to submit representations. It was noted that you failed to provide them with the terms of the audit. (ANI)