DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,LUCKNOW

CIVIL SOCIETY AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

FINAL DRAFT

THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

Submitted To - Submitted By -

Mrs Ankita Yadav Bharat Joshi

Associate Prof. (Law) Roll No - 150101037
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow Semester - VIII

Page 1 of 15
 INDEX

1) INTRODUCTION

2) THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

3) CVC-STATUS, ROLE AND WORKING

4) CVC JURISDICTION

5) VIEWS OF THE JUDICIARY

6) CONCLUSION

Page 2 of 15
 INTRODUCTION

If every public servant adhered to this pledge then corruption would be non-existent and an alien
concept. Unfortunately this is not utopia and corruption is a sad reality of life. It is a menace to
society. Corruption in administration distorts the decision-making process and leads to all kinds of
vices. Public Interest requires incorruptibility in the administration of government departments.

Though the country witnessed scams even in the early years after independence, the blot has never
been as big and as wide as it is today, with several high-profile scandals emerging one after the
other. Think of one scam and numerous others will crowd your mind. The scourge of corruption
has engulfed all sectors of the public domain. The Army, Bureaucracy, Customs, Defence,
Education, Health, Income Tax, Judiciary, Police, Parliament, Politics, Sport – no department or
institution remains unsullied.

At the state level, each state has either a State Vigilance Commission or a Lokayukta which is in
charge of vigilance matters of the state government. In addition, states have directorates of anti-
corruption and vigilance officers in different departments. There is a plethora of central and state
laws to deal with the menace.

Besides the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946,
the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and laws enacted to deal with specific problems such
as money laundering, income tax and excise evasion and foreign exchange manipulation, there are
Lokayukta or Vigilance Commission Acts in the states. There is also the Indian Penal Code, some
of whose provisions are still relevant, despite a few having been repealed by the Prevention of
Corruption Act.

The serious concern expressed by Members of Parliament in the Parliamentary debate in June,
1962 on “Growing Menace of Corruption in Administration” led to the formation of a Committee
on Prevention of Corruption, popularly known as Santhanam Committee, to review the problem
and make suggestions. Expressing its views on the menace of Corruption in India the Santhanam
Committee said:

“It was represented to us that corruption has increased to such an extent that people have started
losing faith in the integrity of public administration. We heard from all sides that corruption has,
in recent years, spread even to those levels of administration from which it was conspicuously
absent in the past. We wish we could confidently and without reservation assert that at the

Page 3 of 15
political level, Ministers, legislators and party officials were free from this malady. The general
impressions are unfair and exaggerated. But the very fact that such impressions are there causes
damage to the social fabric. That such impressions should have come into existence in so short a
time after the people of this country had given themselves a Constitution of their own is all the
more distressing if it is remembered that the struggle for freedom in India was fought on a
particularly high moral plane.’

The Committee also raised an important issue that the Administration could not be a judge of its
own conduct. The Central Vigilance Commission, was, therefore, conceptualized as an apex body
for exercising general superintendence and control over vigilance matters in administration under
Government of India Resolution dated 11th February, 1964. The establishment of the Central
Vigilance Commission was considered essential for evolving and applying common standards in
deciding cases involving lack of probity and integrity in Administration.

THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption

The Committee recommended that the CVC should be vested with jurisdiction and power, inter
alia, to “inquire into and investigate: (a) complaints against acts or omissions, decisions or
recommendation, or administrative procedures or practices on the grounds that they are: (i)
wrong or contrary to law; (ii) unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; (iii)
in accordance with a rule of law or a provision of any enactment or a practice that is or may be
unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or (iv) based wholly or partly on
a mistake of law or fact.”1

The Government of India did not accept this recommendation. The Resolution with which the
CVC was set up did not have this clause in its charter of functions. The recommendation made by
the Committee in the second part2 that the CVC should be given through suitable legislation
certain powers to enable it to undertake enquiries remained unimplemented till 2003 when the
CVC Act was legislated. Though these powers are now available with the Commission 3, they are
not used by it.
1
Paragraph 6 of the Scheme of the CVC forwarded by the Chairman to the Union HomeMinister vide his DO
Letter dated 22 February 1963.
2
Paragraph 6 (A) of the Scheme of the CVC forwarded by the Chairman to the Union HomeMinister vide his
DO Letter No. 1/4/63-CPC dated 17 August 1963.
3
The CVC Act, 2003, Section 11.

Page 4 of 15
The Resolution of 1964

The Resolution of 1964 had two significant provisions. One, it defined the charter of the CVC. Its
main function was to undertake an enquiry or to cause an enquiry or investigation to be made into
any complaint of “corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity, or other kinds of malpractices or
misdemeanour on the part of a public servant including members of the All India Services even if
such members are for the time being serving in connection with the affairs of a state
government.”4The other was to maintain that though the Commission will be an attached office of
the Ministry of Home Affairs, “in the exercise of its powers and functions it will not be
subordinate to any Ministry/Department and will have the same measure of independence and
autonomy as the Union Public Service Commission.”5

The Hawala Case

From 1964 to 1993, for nearly three decades, the CVC rolled along without making any visible
dent on the problem of corruption in the country. A very important milestone in its history
occurred when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in what is popularly known as the
Hawala Case6.

Various measures were suggested by the Court in its final judgement delivered on 18 December
1997. The Court gave directions to establish institutional and other arrangements aimed at
insulating the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement of the Ministry of Finance from outside
influences. Its recommendation was to give the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) a statutory
status.Selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by a Committee
consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from a panel of
outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity.7

It was clearly mentioned by the Court in the Hawala case that the directions issued by them were
meant to implement the rule of law and would have “the force of law under Article 141 and, by
virtue of Article 144, it is the duty of all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to
act in aid of this Court.”8

4
Resolution No. 24/7/64: A V D dated 11 February 1964; Paragraph 2 (ii) (b).
5
Ibid., Paragraph 3.
6
Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 340-343 of 1993.
7
The superintendence of the CBI, according to Section 4 of the Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment Act, vests in
the central government. The Court directed that thissuperintendence should be exercised by the CVC.
8
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 340-343 of 1993; p. 81.

Page 5 of 15
The government, however, promulgated an ordinance, which was bad in law and deliberately
flouted the Court’s judgement. The principal Ordinance was promulgated on 25 August 1998 and
amended only on 27 October 1998. An ordinance has the force of law under Articles 13 and 123
of the Constitution of India. The country thus had to endure the ignominy of living under a law
which came into existence in defiance of the highest legal authority of the land and which was
meant more to serve the interests of senior bureaucrats than of the public for slightly more than
two months. It once again required an intervention by the Court to undo the harm which the
principal ordinance had caused, forcing the government to promulgate another ordinance to amend
it.

The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999

To provide a statutory basis to the CVC, the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999 was
introduced in the Lok Sabha again on 20 December 1999. It was referred to a Joint Committee of
both Houses of Parliament. The Committee presented its report to the two Houses of Parliament
on 22 November 2000. The Bill was finally passed and received the President’s assent to become
the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003 (the CVC Act).

The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003: Departure from the Supreme Court’s Verdict

The CVC Act departed from the Supreme Court’s judgement on several points.

The Single Directive:The Single Directive is a term commonly associated with the functioning of
the CBI. Some of the executive instructions issued periodically since 1969 by central government
ministries/departments to the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding the modalities of initiating
an inquiry or registering a case against certain categories of civil servants were consolidated by the
government in the form of a Single Directive.The Supreme Court’s judgement declared the Single
Directive as null and void. The Court found it bad in law. It required a police agency to seek
permission from the executive to initiate investigation into a criminal offence, which is contrary to
law.
It also violated the canon of equality in the application of law.The CVC Act infracted these basic
principles of legal jurisprudence by resurrecting the Single Directive. What was earlier a part of
executive instruction was now given a statutory wrap.

Page 6 of 15
Superintendence over the CBI: The Supreme Court had directed that the Central Vigilance
Commission should be entrusted with the responsibility of exercising superintendence over the
functioning of the CBI. The CVC Act, on the other hand, prescribes that the Commission shall
exercise superintendence over the functioning of only the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so
far as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only9.

Procedure for the Appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner: The Supreme Court
decreed that the selection for the post of the Central Vigilance Commissioner should be made
from a “panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity”. The CVC Act,
on the other hand, does not insist on such qualifications. It restricts the selection to civil servants,
past and present and those who have held or are holding office in corporations and companies
owned or controlled by the central government with experience in policy-making, administration,
finance, law, vigilance and investigation. The Act omits the category of “others”, restricts
selection mainly to civil servants and does not insist that the selected persons should be
either “outstanding” or have impeccable integrity.” this problem has arisen due to the
controversy regarding the selection of P.J.Thomas as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner by the
Prime Minister because of his controversies as a civil servant in Kerala.

CVC-STATUS, ROLE AND WORKING

The CVC acts as an apex body for rendering impartial and objective advice to the disciplinary and
other authorities on vigilance matters and vigilance related cases, where a public servant is alleged
to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner in discharge of his official duties.
The CVC, thus, mainly plays an advisory role. In it’s functioning, the CVC is independent and,
therefore, imparts an element of externality and objectivity in the decision making process of the
administrative authorities in the matters relating to probity and integrity of public servants.
Apart from impartiality and objectivity, the functioning of the CVC also ensures consistency and
common standard of action for similar kinds of misconduct including criminal misconduct10.

9
The CVC Act, 2003, Section 8 (1)(a).
10
C.K Thakker, Administrative Law (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 1996)at 214.

Page 7 of 15
Complaints constitute an important source of information leading to the exposure of misconduct
and malpractices. CVC had observed that a large number of complaints received were either
anonymous or pseudonymous in nature.

A peculiar feature of these complaints was that these were resorted to especially when a public
servant’s promotion was due or when an executive was likely to be called by the Public
Enterprises Selection Board for interview for a post of Director etc. Such
anonymous/pseudonymous complaints achieved the objective of delaying if not denying the
promotions. The CVC also observed that such complaints demoralized many honest public
servants. Thus the CVC issued instructions that no action should be taken on any anonymous or
pseudonymous complaints and such complaints should just be filed.11

The investigation reports furnished by the Chief Vigilance Officers or by the CBI are examined in
the CVC. The CVC, depending upon the circumstances and facts of each case, advises initiation of
criminal or departmental proceedings against the concerned public servant or issuance of
administrative warning to him or the closure of the case. The CVC’s advice at this stage is termed
as First Stage Advice.12

The departmental proceedings could be for imposition of a major penalty or a minor penalty. If the
CVC advises initiation of departmental proceedings for major penalty, it also indicates whether
the departmental inquiry is to be conducted by a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries borne
on the strength of the CVC or the department may appoint its own inquiry officer for the purpose.
The enquiry report in either case, however, is furnished to the CVC for its Second Stage Advice
before taking a final decision. The CVC also tenders second stage advice in those cases in which
the departmental proceedings for minor penalty were initiated on the CVC’s advice and the
concerned disciplinary authorities propose to close the case after examining the statement of
defense.13

11
Supra note 6 at 9.
12
L.M Bhatia, “Central Vigilance Commission- Its Role in Administrative Vigilance” Indian Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. XVII, (1971)at 67.
13
Supra note 6 at 11.

Page 8 of 15
 CVC JURISDICTION

Though the advisory jurisdiction of the CVC extends to all organizations to which the executive
control of the Union extends, however, for practical reasons, the CVC presently advises only on
vigilance cases pertaining to the following categories of employees:
1. Gazetted Central Government Officials
2. Two levels below the Board level appointees in the Public sector Undertakings of the
Central Government
3. Officers of the rank of Scale III and above in the public sector banks
4. Officers of the rank of Assistant Manager and above in the Insurance Sector
5. Officers in autonomous bodies/local authorities or societies comparable in status to that of
a Gazetted Central Government Officer.
Nonetheless, the CVC retains its residuary powers to call for any individual case in respect of
employees other than those who are within its normal jurisdiction.

RESTRAINTS -
Under the authority of Government of India’s Resolution dated 11.02.1964, the CVC was
empowered to undertake an inquiry into any transaction in which a public servant was suspected
or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner irrespective of his status.
It was only through subsequent administrative instructions that the CVC’s jurisdiction was
restricted to certain categories of employees for the purpose of its advice. Even in that situation the
CVC could call for a report on any complaint of corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity,
misdemeanor etc. against any public servant irrespective of his status.

While the intention of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineet Narain’s case to accord statutory
status to the CVC appears to strengthen the organization, the provision in the CVC Bill, restricting
its jurisdiction to inquire into or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made in to the alleged
commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 only, and that too against certain categories of employees, in fact, tantamount to weakening
its authority. Further the CVC has been given powers to exercise superintendence over the
vigilance administration of various Ministries of the Central Government, PSUs, societies,
autonomous organizations etc. The restriction upon the CVC to call for suo moto reports on the

Page 9 of 15
complaints will only hamper its functioning. The Government of India should, therefore,
reconsider their proposal and authorize the CVC to call for suo moto reports on complaints
irrespective of the status of the official named therein.

It was envisaged in the Government of India’s Resolution dated 11.02.1964 that the relevant rules
under the All India Services Act would be amended in consultation with the State Governments in
order to bring the Members of those Services under the purview of the CVC. However, even after
35 years of the CVC’s existence, the All India Services Officers, particularly the members of the
IAS, IPS and the Indian Forest Service do not fall within the CVC’s jurisdiction if the alleged
irregularities committed by them are connected with the affairs of the State Governments. Recent
experience has shown that corruption at the State level flourishes owing to the collusion between
the Members of the All India Services and the powers that be at the State level. If these officers
are wholly brought within the purview of the CVC, there is likely to be some psychological check
on corruption. The CVC has, therefore, suggested to the Government of India to make necessary
amendments to the CVC bill before it is passed.14

The CVC now exists under the Government of India’s Resolution dated 04.04.1999. The said
resolution, apart from not having the statutory backing, also limits the operation of the CVC
inasmuch as it does not mention about the powers of the CVC to exercise superintendence over
the functions of the CBI, appointments of the Chief Vigilance Officers being made in consultation
with the CVC and writing of their Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). The CVC has pointed out
these deficiencies to the Government of India for appropriate action.15

VIEWS OF THE JUDICIARY

14
Thirty Sixth Annual Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, 1999 (New Delhi: Central Vigilance
Commission, 2000)at 5.
15
Id.

Page 10 of 15
The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Vineet Narain v. Union of India 16 is a landmark
judgment and is of immense significance to the study of the Central Vigilance Commission and
prevention of corruption in public administration.
In Vineet Narain’s case the Supreme Court discussed the issue of the Single Directive and held
that it was unconstitutional and struck it down. The Single Directive17 is a consolidated set of
instructions issued to the CBI by the various Ministries/Departments regarding the prior sanction
of the designated authority to initiate investigation against officers of the Government, public
sector undertakings and nationalized banks, above a certain level. In the Government of India it is
at the level of the Joint Secretary.
In this context the Court stated 18 that the law does not classify offenders differently for treatment
thereunder, including investigation of offences and prosecution for offences, according to their
status in life. Every person accused of committing the same offence is to be dealt with in the same
manner in accordance with law, which is equal in its application to everyone.

The Single Directive is applicable only to certain persons above the specified level who are
described as "decision – making officers". The question is whether any distinction can be made for
them for the purpose of investigation of an offence of which they are accused. Obviously, where
the accusation of corruption is based on direct evidence and it does not require any inference to be
dependent on the decision-making process, there is no rational basis to classify them differently.
In other words, if the accusation be bribery which is supported by direct evidence of acceptance of
illegal gratification by them, including trap cases, it is obvious that no other factor is relevant and
the level or status of the offender is irrelevant. It is for this reason that it was conceded that such
cases, i.e., of bribery, including trap cases, are outside the scope of the Single Directive. It is clear
that the accusation of possession of disproportionate assets by the person is also based on direct
evidence and no factor pertaining to the expertise of decision –making is involved therein.
The Court, therefore, had no doubt that the Single Directive cannot include within its ambit cases
of possession of disproportionate assets by the offender.

The rationale of the Supreme Court Judgment for holding the Single Directive as unconstitutional
is very strong. Unfortunately in spite of the clear reasoning of the Supreme Court in for declaring
the Single Directive to be invalid, the Single Directive either in the form of a directive or de facto
practice prevails in practically all states. The Supreme Court judgment does not apply to the states.
16
(1998)1 SCC 226.
17
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998)1 SCC 226.
18
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998)1 SCC 226.

Page 11 of 15
In the interest of probity in administration, it is necessary that the Single Directive is struck down
in the states also. Perhaps the best method of ensuring this would be through a public interest
litigation where the Supreme Court can clarify that the decision of the Court holding the Single
Directive to be invalid and unconstitutional should also apply equally to all the State
Governments. This will be an important step to ensure that corruption is checked at higher levels
of administration.

In Vineet Narain’s case the Supreme Court directed that:19

The CVC shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI. While Government shall
remain answerable for the CBI’s functioning, to introduce visible objectivity in the mechanism to
be established for over viewing the CBI’s working, the CVC shall be entrusted with the
responsibility of superintendence over the CBI’s functioning. The CBI shall report to the CVC
about cases taken up by it foe investigation; progress of the investigation; cases in which charge
sheets are filed and their progress. The CVC shall review the progress of all cases moved by the
CBI for sanction of prosecution of public servants which are pending with the competent
authorities especially those in which sanction has been delayed or refused.

The Supreme Court also issued several other directions in order to ensure incorruptibility in public
administration in India.

In Nagraj Shiva Rao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, Manipal20it was held that the advice tendered by
the CVC is not binding on the bank or the punishing authority and it is not obligatory on the bank
or the punishing authority to accept the advice of the CVC.

In V.D Trivedi v. Union of India 21 the Court held that it can make a final order on the basis of the
report submitted by the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries even though the report has to go
to the CVC and the final decision on the report is to be recommended by the CVC.

In Waris Rashid Kidwai v. Union of India 22, the Court, highlighting the importance of the role of
the CVC in the matter of appointments of the Board level employees of Public Sector Enterprises
stated that “In respect of appointments like the one in question before us, CVC acts as a watch-

19
Id.
20
(1991)3 SCC 219.
21
AIR 1993 SC 464.
22
AIR 1998 Delhi 31.

Page 12 of 15
dog. The person to be appointed to such a post has to be above board and ought to have
impeccable integrity. The CVC clearance before appointment is not just formality. The
requirement of CVC clearance has a laudable object behind it.”

It is trite that the holders of public services are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in
public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any
deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be
severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence,
it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out
should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law
vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against
erosion of the rule of law.

CONCLUSION

‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you’23

This maxim is the basic tenet of the rule of law and highlights the importance of the concept of
equality. Investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable
basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed
expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the
government agencies.24

The CVC has been making all efforts to retain and maintain this public confidence and to show the
people that the maxim holds good and those who are corrupt, no matter how high their position is,
will be punished.
In an effort to propagate the idea of zero tolerance for corruption, the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC) in India has begun to share with citizens a large amount of information related
to corruption. The CVC has started using its web site to bring in greater transparency in corruption
in high places. On its website, the CVC published the names of the public servants who have been

23
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1996)2 SCC 199.
24
Id.

Page 13 of 15
found guilty in departmental proceedings and against whom major penalty has been recommended
or against whom prosecution has been recommended.
Newspaper polls have shown that this move was welcomed by the people at large. In fact, Harvard
University called the Central Vigilance Commissioner to deliver a talk on 19 th October, 2000 in
the Institute of International Development because this was for the first time that the Internet was
used to fight corruption.
The CVC website contains the following sections/features through which the CVC communicates
with the public:25
Thus the CVC is moving with the times and it is hoped that the CVC will continue to leave no
stone unturned in fighting corruption in high places and will fulfill the objectives of the
Santhanam Committee viz. to bring about incorruptibility in administration of government
departments.

25
www.cvc.nic.in

Page 14 of 15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:
1. I.P. Massey, Administrative Law, (8th edn, 2012, Eastern Book Company)
2. U.P.D. Kesari, Administrative Law, (15th edn, 2012, Central Law Publications)
3. S.P. Sathe, Administrative Law, (7th edn, 2012, Lexis Nexis)

Online sources:
1. www.cvc.nic.in
2. www.manupatra.com
3. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-27/news/47739896_1_cvc-pradeep-kumar-
rajiv-central-vigilance-commissioner
4. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/central-vigilance-commissioner
5. http://india.gov.in/howdo/otherservice_details.php?service=14

Page 15 of 15