Article 151

The framers wanted an independent check on how public money is spent, but they also wanted that check to work through constitutional heads of state rather than directly to the legislature, preserving formal channels of communication between the executive and the legislature. This mirrors the British tradition of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reporting to Parliament, adapted to India's federal structure by adding a parallel State-level process through Governors.

Courts have generally treated the phrase 'shall cause them to be laid' as imposing a real constitutional duty, not a mere formality. In several cases, High Courts have held that unreasonable delay by the government in tabling CAG reports before the legislature can be challenged, since the purpose of the Article — public and legislative scrutiny of finances — would otherwise be defeated. However, courts have been cautious about prescribing exact timelines, treating the pace of tabling as largely a matter for the President/Governor and the government of the day, subject to constitutional propriety.

• Myth: The CAG directly presents its reports to Parliament or State Legislatures.
  Fact: The CAG submits reports to the President or Governor first; only they formally cause the reports to be laid before the legislature.
• Myth: There's a strict deadline in the Constitution for tabling these reports.
  Fact: Article 151 doesn't specify a timeline; courts have sometimes intervened against unreasonable delay, but no fixed period is constitutionally mandated.