You are on page 1of 6

Anti-corruption measures

The central government has set up the following four departments as anti-corruption
(i) Administrative Vigilance Division (AVD) in the Department of Personnel and Training, (ii)
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
(iii) Domestic Vigilance Units in the Ministries/ Departments/Public Undertakings/Nationalized
Banks, and
(iv) Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
Central Vigilance Commission:
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was set up in 1964 in pursuance of the
recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on the prevention of corruption. The CVC is a
non-statutory body whose jurisdiction and functions can be amended not by the parliament but by
a government order. It deals with cases of corruption against the gazetted officers of central
government, union territories, officers of PSUs, and nationalized banks.
It is independent of government and works as an autonomous body like the Union Public Service
Commission. Its role is merely advisory. It is a one-man commission headed by the Central
Vigilance Commissioner, assisted by a Secretary, five Branch Officers and eleven Commissioners
for Departmental Inquiries (CDIs).

The main functions of the CVC are:
(1) To undertake an inquiry into any complaint of corruption against a public servant;
(2) To advise the disciplinary authority about the type of proceedings to be initiated against
accused person involved in corruption;
(3) To direct the CBI to register a regular case; and

between 1955 and 1997) more than two dozen commissions have been appointed by the Government of India to inquire into the charges of corruption against politicians and public companies. Krishnamachari (and also Finance Secretary and Chairman of Life Insurance Corporation). Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (1976). Mudhokar Commission against V. and Reddy Commission (1977) against contracts entered by Union Defence Minister. . Sarkaria Commission against M. Five commissions appointed against the ministers were: Chagla Commission (1956) against Union Finance Minister T. Chief Minister of Assam (1968). Kunju. Various Commissions on Corruption of Politicians and Public Companies: In the last forty years (i. Khanna Commission against Biju Patnaik.T. Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir (1965). Aiyer Commission (1967) against five ministers of Bihar. 365 crore coalimport deal in August 1993 and the other related to the purchase of a large plot of land from the state government for Rs. Five other commissions on charges of corruption were: Vaidyalingam Commission (1979) on charges of corruption and wielding extra-constitutional authority to interfere in government affairs against Kanti Desai. These were: Das Commission against Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon. The Governor of Tamil Nadu even permitted the Janata Party President in April 1995 to prosecute the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister for two out of 38 charges against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Prime Minister of India. and Jankiraman Committee (1992) on Security Scam. Mahtab. 4.. Kapur Commission against Dayanand Bandodkar. a Commission (1969) against R. wife of Charan Singh. one involved Rs. Corruption charges were recently levelled against two Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal (1995). and Gurdev Singh Commission against Zail Singh. and Gayatri Devi. Chief Minister of Karnataka (1977).27 crore. Ayyangar Commission against Bakshi Gulam Mohmad. Of these. Chief Minister of Goa (1968). Shankeranand Committee (1990) on corruption charges in Bofors deal. Karunanidhi. Of these two charges. Grover Commission against Dev Raj Urs. Chief Minister of Punjab (1963). Vimada Lai Commission against Vengala Rao. minister in Kerala. son of Morarji Desai. nine commissions were appointed during the period 1963 to 1983 against the Chief Ministers of different states. 1. Chief Minister of Punjab (1979). Chief Minister of Orissa (1967).K. Kailasam Sadasivan and Ray Commissions (1981) against spirit scandals in Kerala and Tamil Nadu.K. Madholkar Commission (1968) against thirteen ministers of Bihar.82 crore when its estimated market value was Rs. Bansilal.(4) To exercise general check and supervision over the vigilance and anti-corruption work in ministries/departments/banks/ public undertakings.e. Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh (1977).

There is no substitute for Lok Pal whose jurisdiction is to be confined to investigation of the corruption charges against those holding high offices. 1985 and 1989) for appointing the Lok Pals but these bills were never passed. Karnataka. 1995. which is yet to be passed. Prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is possible only if the complainant gets government permission which is seldom given for obvious reasons. The Committee has recommended the setting up of an agency to collate information from all agencies and take immediate. The report has made a scathing commentary on the nexus between politicians and criminals. The Committee has even stated that some parliamentarians and State Assembly members have come into political power through the leadership of gangs and armed senas. Himachal Pradesh. Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) have set up Lok Ayuktas for investigating charges of corruption against ministers. 1977. Maharashtra. The real hurdle in passage of the bill is the lack of political will. 1971. The United Front government introduced the Lok Pal Bill in the parliament in September 1996. No citizen can invoke the . The government had shelved the report for 18 months but under the pressures of the opposition parties in the parliament. the report was put in the two houses of parliament in August 1995. Eleven states in India (including Bihar. 50 to Rs. Madhya Pradesh. It has stated that the “network of the mafia is virtually running a parallel government pushing the state apparatus into irrelevance”. Lok Pal Bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha five times in 29 years (1968. The Vohra Committee was set up in July 1993 to study corruption in India by taking stock of the links between government functionaries and political personalities and crime syndicates and mafia organizations. 100 crore on the wedding of her foster son in September. effective and deterrent action against the crime syndicates. though in 1992 and again in 1994. the then Prime Minister had promised that an institution like Ombudsman in Sweden and a few other European countries will be established by law at the central level. The charges were levelled by the former Tripura Chief Minister and a veteran Marxist leader. smuggling gangs and economic lobbies in the country which have over the years developed an extensive network of contacts with the government functionaries and bureaucrats at the local levels and politicians and media persons at the state and the central levels. including the Prime Minister. Yet another Chief Minister who was charged in April 1995 for corrupt practices is a person who has been the Chief Minister of West Bengal for more than 18 years. There is no such institution as yet at the national level which may act as a watchdog body on ministers’ probity.This Chief Minister had also been accused of spending Rs. MLAs and other public functionaries. The Committee submitted its report in October 1993.

(3) Protection to vigilance officers against sending them back to their parent cadre for investigating the cases of highly placed officials. It. .Special Courts Act as long as the government does not agree that a prima facie case calling for action exists. The CBI being a government agency cannot report to the judicial courts directly on a longterm basis bypassing the government and without government supervision over its functioning. The recommendations pertained to various aspects of corruption. in recent times people have come to talk about ‘judicial activism’. foisting false cases and manipulating evidence against corrupt officials have been routinely and repeatedly made in our country. Allegations of police fabricating evidence. A committee on Prevention of Corruption was appointed by the Government of India in 1962 under the chairmanship of K. The society cannot depend on the police for surveillance as it does not enjoy the reputation of being honest. appears that the CBI will have the limited role of exercising vigilance on the lower and middle categories of public servants. Measures to Control Corruption in India! The existing CBI and the anti-corruption police have proved helpless in investigating. The Lokpal and Lokayukts will have to prosecute ministers and highly-placed politicians. (2) Assurance to vigilance officers of promotion for efficient work. initiating action and penalising corrupt ministers and high political persons. Both these handicaps will be absent in the Lok Pal which can be moved by anyone to start a case by filling an affidavit. The CBI officials have confessed to political pressures on them. It is a well known fact that the CBI could investigate the case of former Bihar chief minister more speedily only under the protective wings of the High Court. This Committee gave its report in 1964. The measures suggested by the Santhanam Committee for efficient working of the department were: (1) Independence to vigilance officers to investigate complaints of corruption and malpractices. therefore. Santhanam. No wonder.

(6) The Central Lokayukta should be appropriately linked to the Lokpal through common officers and staff and investigating and prosecuting agencies. (iii) Domestic Vigilance Units in the Ministries/ Departments/Public Undertakings/Nationalised Banks. y in processing cases. The central government has set up the following four departments as anti-corruption measures: (i) Administrative Vigilance Division (AVD) in the Department of Personnel and Training (ii) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). and (iv) Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). (3) The Lokpal should have legal powers to prosecute an accu3cJ minister in specially designated courts after a prima facie case is established against him by the Lokpal’s own inquiry. (5) The Chief Vigilance Commissioner should be re-designated as the Central Lokayukta. Some suggestions given by the former Chief Vigilance Commissioner for effectively tackling corruption are worth consideration.(4) Giving representation to Central Civil Services and technical services in the Central Vigilance Commission. (1) Establishing the Lokpal institutions to deal with political corruption with powers of initiating action against central ministers and MPs (2) The Lokpal should have its own independent investigating and prosecuting agency without having to depend on the CBI. (This recommendation was implemented by reconstituting the Vigilance Commission in the last few months of 1998). (4) The charged minister must compulsorily resign after the filing of the charge-sheet in the court. . (6) Cutting down the number of stages by the government to check del. (5) Intensive training to non-gazetted inspectorial staff of the Vigilance Department in departmental rules and procedures since about 80 per cent of the vigilance cases are enquired at the lower level. It was on the basis of the recommendations of this Committee that the Central Vigilance Commission was set up in 1964 for looking into cases of corruption against the central government and other employees.

(3) To direct the CBI to register a regular case. (2) To advise the disciplinary authority about the type of proceedings to be initiated against accused person involved in corruption.The main functions of the CVC are: (1) To undertake an inquiry into any complaint of corruption against a public servant. and (4) To exercise general check and supervision over the vigilance and anti-corruption work in ministries/department/banks/public undertakings. .