Tough tasks ahead

With the Central Vigilance Commission overshadowed by controversies, N. Vittal, the new Chief Vigilance Commissioner, has his role cut out for him.

SUDHA MAHALINGAM

NAGARAJAN VITTAL, the country's first statutory Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVCr), was one of the few bureaucrats in the reckoning for the job who have had a fairly non-controversial career. The others who were mentioned for the post included former Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramaniam, former Home Secretary K. Padmana-bhiah, and former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation R.C. Sharma.

An IAS officer of the 1962 batch from the Gujarat cadre, Vittal has occupied several important posts, including that of Secretary, Telecommunications, and Chairman of the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB). He was perceived to be a pro-active leader when he headed the telecommunications set-up. Yet some of his former colleagues point out that in the various departments that he served, Vittal, known for his personal integrity, was surrounded by officers who were not exactly above board and that he had done nothing to address this problem.

However, now his main task as CVCr is to address the issue of corruption not only in various government departments, nationalised banks, public sector undertakings and autonomous bodies that receive government grants, but also by politicians who are investigated by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Rarely has one man been entrusted with so much responsibility and commensurate powers.

A conscientious person and a quick learner, Vittal has already familiarised himself with vigilance and anti-corruption work. "I did not have experience in vigilance and anti-corruption when I was selected for this job," he said with modesty, "but I am learning every day." Unlike earlier CVCrs, Vittal derives his powers from the statute; he also has an assured tenure and a free rein when it comes to framing rules and procedures for the functioning of the new CVC. He will also have the final say in the appointment of the chiefs of the two investigative agencies, the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.), as also other officers up to the level of Deputy Director in the two agencies. The only limiting factor is that the panel from which these officers, including the chiefs of the two agencies, are selected will be provided by the Government.

Vittal, whose table is already piled high with files, does not believe that the absence of the other Commissioners hampers work in the Commission (the Ordinance issued by the Government envisages a multi-member CVC as opposed to the Supreme Court's order, which envisaged a single-member CVC). One of his foremost tasks will be the selection of new chiefs for the CBI and the E.D. He, however, told Frontline that there was as yet no move to appoint a new CBI chief, and that the appointment of the new E.D. chief would be done only after the Supreme Court decides on the submissions made by Anil Diwan, the amicus curiae. However, he is likely to go ahead with the appointment of officials of the level of Joint Director and above in the CBI.

CBI Director Trinath Mishra told Frontline that he had requested the new CVCr to expedite the appointment of officers since the agency was acutely short of personnel while its workload had increased rapidly.

SHANKER CHAKRAVARTY
Newly-installed Chief Vigilance Commissioner N. Vittal with President K.R. Narayanan and Vice-President Krishan Kant.

The CVCr has taxing times ahead. He will first have to frame the procedures for the working of the Commission and get them notified by the Government. The Ordinance empowers the Commission to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the CBI insofar as its work relates to investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. How exactly this superintendence will be carried out will have to be first decided by the Commission. The CVC will also have to grant approval for conducting investigations into allegations of corruption under the PCA, review the progress of the investigations, and exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of the various Union Ministries or corporations established by or under a Central Act, government companies, societies and authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government.

The CBI at present handles several sensitive cases, including the Bofors scandal, the Indian Bank scam, the fodder scam, the Jain hawala case, the Uttar Pradesh float pump case, the case relating to the donations received from abroad by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader Jayalalitha, the wheat import deal, and the HDW submarine deal. It has drawn flak for filing charge-sheets that did not stand the scrutiny of the court in the Jain hawala case. The Indian Bank case is also being monitored directly by the Supreme Court.

Under the Ordinance, the CBI will be able to take up investigations into allegations of corruption against officials of and above the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and of general managers and above of nationalised banks, and equivalent ranks in public sector undertakings only after receiving clearance from the CVC. This "single directive" can be used by the bureaucracy to block investigations against its members. The question whether the Commission will be required to exercise this function will be settled only after the Supreme Court takes a decision on Anil Diwan's submissions in this regard and the public interest petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) challenging the provision.

MEANWHILE, the composition of the Commission itself is being challenged by Anil Diwan and the CPIL. The dispute is over whether the Commission should be a single-member body or a multi-member body. Union Minister for Urban Affairs Ram Jethmalani, who headed the committee of Ministers that vetted the Government's draft Ordinance, is of the view that the Commission should be a single-member body, while the draft prepared by the Law Commission favoured a multi-member Commission. However, there was no difference of opinion as to the pool from which the Vigilance Commissioners will be chosen.

The Supreme Court had directed that the CVCr be selected from among a panel of civil servants with impeccable integrity, and others. This would have enabled the Government to consider judges or other eminent persons for the job. Both the Law Commission and the committee of Ministers that vetted the draft agreed to this. However, when the Ordinance finally emerged, not only was the Ministerial committee's views disregarded, but the Law Commission draft which was handed over by the bureaucracy to the committee of Ministers after Jethmalani demanded it, mysteriously left out the words "and others", thus limiting the choice of the CVCr to bureaucrats. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, the Law Commission Chairman, has since issued a corrigendum and advised the Government to include the words "and others" in the clause relating to the selection of the CVCr.

Jethmalani wrote an angry letter to Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee, detailing the attempts made by bureaucrats to keep the Law Commission's draft away from the committee of Ministers, and how bureaucrats had succeeded in getting their version of the CVC draft approved. This version ensured that it would be bureaucrats alone who would man positions in the CVC and that the Secretary, Personnel, would be an ex-officio member of the CVC in order to perpetuate bureaucratic and government control over the Commission.

THE CVC continues to be affected by these and other controversies. That a Commission with enormous powers and entrusted with such sweeping responsibilities should have been set up in a tearing hurry through a controversial Ordinance - one that appears to be the product of devious machinations by an ingenious bureaucracy eager to please its political bosses - raises serious questions. That the urgency to set up the CVC was a direct consequence of the mess the Government got into because of its decision to transfer M.K. Bezboruah from the E.D. is abundantly clear. Earlier, the Government had shown no inclination to set up the CVC and had demonstrated its keenness to replace the independent chiefs of the CBI and the E.D. When the move backfired and the Supreme Court intervened, the draft Ordinance on the CVC was cobbled together with the aim of stalling and preventing the reinstatement of Bezboruah. That the Government could, even while carrying out a hasty operation, ensure that the CBI did not entirely slip out of its control - it achieved this by inducting the Secretary, Personnel, into the CVC - speaks volumes about its ingenuity.

However, as Jethmalani said, one hopes that the last word on the CVC is yet to be said.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar