JOIN USThe Supreme Court’s observations on the government’s procedure for appointments to the Central Vigilance Commission have again exposed its faulty and unfair system of selection of persons for constitutional and other senior positions.
The posts of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and vigilance commissioners have to be filled up soon as the incumbents’ terms are going to expire shortly. The almost secretive system of appointment initiated by the government has been challenged in the court.
The petition has pointed out that the process adopted by the government contravened the provisions of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003 and violated the common norms of fairness and transparency.
The government has now given an assurance that no final decision on appointments would be made till the matter is decided by the court. The court has asked the Centre to consider people from different fields before taking a decision.
The matter came into public focus with a letter written by the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, to 37 other secretaries of various departments to recommend names for the CVC positions.
It is surprising that such key posts are filled by an internal process of reference where there is no transparency. The shortlist made from the proposals mooted by secretaries would most certainly contain the names of serving bureaucrats and would exclude eligible persons from other fields.
When the appointment of PJ Thomas as the CVC, made by the UPA government, was struck down by the Supreme Court, it had said the pool for selection should be widened to include persons other than the bureaucrats. But the government has ignored the directive.
The government told the court that applications could not be invited to the posts as many people preferred to be considered for the posts rather than applying for them. This is a lame excuse.
It has been the practice in the country to keep high constitutional and regulatory positions as the preserve of bureaucrats. This has happened with many other important positions. It is, in fact, better to avoid bureaucrats for such positions because many of them would have conflicts of interests.
The CVC’s responsibilities include taking decisions on the conduct and actions of many senior officials with whom he may have worked or even on those in which he may himself have been involved.
It is also necessary that the selection process is transparent and above charges of favouritism and nepotism. The restrictive process of selection, sought to be undertaken by the government, does not evoke public trust and should be dropped.