CVC: SC VERDICT

Can we See Some Accountability... Please?

While there are Mixed Reactions over The Impact of SC’s Verdict on P. J. Thomas’ Appointment as CVC, The Nation Actually needs to Focus on Politicians who run The Show.
Issue Date - 31/03/2011

The office of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the apex vigilance institution, has lately been in the news for all the wrong reasons. In a first of its kind in India, a three-member Supreme Court (SC) bench on March 3 quashed appointment of P. J. Thomas, a 1973-batch IAS officer of the Kerala cadre, declaring it as “un est” in law.

Thomas’ current woes date back to a palmolein import case in 1991 when he was the Food Secretary in the Congress-led UDF government in Kerala. In 1996, the Left government in Kearla had ordered a vigilance inquiry into the cabinet decision taken by the then Congress-led Government to import 15,000 metric tonne of palmolein oil, which allegedly caused a revenue loss of Rs.20 million to the state. Thomas was selected to the post in September, 2010, by a committee consisting of the PM, Union Home minister P. Chidambaram and Leader of Opposition, Sushma Swaraj.

Meanwhile, with the Prime Minister accepting responsibility for the “error in judgement” as the final signing authority that approved Thomas’ appointment as CVC, the move has just become a blessing in disguise that Thomas would like. According to Thomas’ counsel Wills Mathews, Thomas has now moved to SC challenging the very legality of the verdict that set aside his appointment as CVC. “The constitutional provisions mandate that the matter be heard by a five-judge bench as opposed to the three-judge bench that handed the verdict in this case. Moreover, the selection of Thomas was carried out by a government committee and the error has been accepted by the PM himself,” Mathews told B&E. When asked about the future course of action, Mathews said that since the error had been committed by the Union of India, it was for the government to rectify it. “Once the mistake is corrected, Thomas will automatically be reinstated,” he said.

Amidst all this chaos also lies a threat to the confidence of whistleblowers who had utmost faith in the CVC when it came to reporting matters pertaining to corruption in government offices. For Dhanraj Singh (name changed on request), a whistleblower involved in bringing the Chairman of a CPSE to book after he took matters to the CVC, “Reporting matters to the CVC is not a routine affair and takes a lot of courage to go ahead with pursuing the matter due to the constant fear of consequences.” While getting matters attended to has been a cause of concern, there is also sheer disappointment when one finds that the appointment of the highest anti-corruption authority was taken lightly. “The anxiety among many of us is on how future complaints will be treated,” Dhanraj adds. Alongside this sense of disappointment within a section of “honest” government servants, there is also a separate school of thought. “The Apex court’s verdict annulling the appointment of the CVC has come as a major jolt to the government and we can expect an overhaul in the manner in which the anti-corruption watchdog functions. We expect more sincerity from the CVC now,” says another whistleblower on condition of anonimity.

However, Pratyush Sinha, former CVC (September 2006 - September 2010), takes a different stand on the matter. “Even during my 4 years, there was no government influence on the inquiry or the nature of cases. However, before the media starts questioning the integrity of the CVC’s office, it should also be understood that most cases which are reported to the CVC are from states, where the CVC has no say at all,” says the 1969-batch IAS officer of Bihar cadre mooting for strengthening the ambit and scope of the CVC. “Even in all its righteousness, in cases pertaining to states, all that CVC can do is send a letter to the respective Chief Secretary stating its intent to investigate a matter of irregularity or corruption, a mechanism where there is no obligation on the state to even respond to it,” he adds.

At a time when the morale of the country is already shattered with revelations of a multi-crore scam on every other day, overlooking a vital aspect of institutional and personal integrity while deciding an appointment to the office of the otherwise sacrosanct anti-corruption watchdog by the high-ups in power has not been a pleasant experience for the nation. Nevertheless, the issue also unveils the casualties that could be associated with similar senior appointments.

“The verdict brought out by the Supreme Court underlines the importance of following the due procedure laid down for appointments to such crucial posts. While talking about the courage shown by the apex court in bringing out such a verdict, it should also be noted that there is need for greater adherence to procedures followed during appointments within the judiciary as well,” says A. P. Shah, retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

The magnitude of corruption in the higher levels of the civil services is actually enormous compared to that in the lower rungs. More than 110 officials, including a highest of 26 from Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), were penalised by CVC in 2010 for their alleged involvement in corruption. As per the CVC’s latest performance report for January, major penalties were imposed against 116 officials and the CVC recovered Rs.148.8 million after examination of three Central departments.

Amidst indications that the Opposition failed to capitalise on the issue despite a clear upper hand, there were also rumours that neither side wanted an election at this time. BJP’s tone too has been strikingly different in this case. The apprehensions, as per sources, could be rooted in corruption where BJP leaders are involved and with the SC having vindicated BJP’s stand already, the fear of a public perception that the Opposition had no issues left to debate could be another issue. As for the Congress, already in the dock over the revelation of a number of scams, the chances for further attack has diminished with the PM accepting responsibility. “SC has adjudicated the matter, the Prime Minister has already spoken on it... There is nothing left to add to it,” Manish Tewari, Congress’ national spokesperson said when contacted by B&E.

The implications of the judgement will surface gradually. However, for a country like ours where the bureaucracy is known to be an exclusive premise of corrupt politicians, shouldn’t Indian lawmakers take a similar stand when it comes to tainted politicians as well?