UPA Govt scores a self-goal

Messy governance: The Thomas affair has undermined the institution of CVC

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is not just another department under the Government of India. It is a statutory body established by an act of Parliament, which guides and monitors two top central investigating agencies – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The selection of the Directors of CBI and ED is carried out by Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). The appointment of officers of the level of SP and above in the CBI are also made by the CVC.  The CVC is an important watchdog to check the ever tightening grip of corruption in the society and the body-politic of the country.

The high status, enormous authority, jurisdiction and responsibility vested in the institution have made the selection of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) by a three-member committee headed by the Prime Minister a very important public decision.  The main opposition BJP objected to the appointment of P J Thomas as CVC on September 7, 2010, by arguing that Caesar’s wife should be above all suspicion. The BJP leaders boycotted his swearing-in ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhawan giving an early indication of their strong reservation on the issue. Commenting on the controversy that has engulfed the CVC office ever since, many critics, some of them in the ruling Congress, say the Government has scored a self-goal.

The Palmolein oil import case in Kerala is dangling like a Damocles sword over the incumbent CVC, who has become a proverbial thorn-in-flesh in the body of the UPA-2, already groaning under the weight of several corruption charges.  It is a no-win situation for the Centre, which is now allowing the destiny of Thomas to take “it’s own course”.

Thomas has defended himself saying unlike several MPs still holding high offices despite corruption allegations, the charges against him are not serious. He says if the charges against him had been serious, he would have been placed under suspension under Rule 3 of the All India Services ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

Caught between the devil and the deep sea, the UPA-2 just seems to be following the dictum - `this too shall pass’! An encouraged BJP is waiting in a corner to ambush the nervous Government, which is unable to digest the morsel, it has bitten into, but is unable to spit out as well. 

The Supreme Court has further complicated the issue for the beleaguered Centre by  raising questions on Thomas’s  ability to supervise the CBI probe in the 2G spectrum allocation case. “It would be difficult for Thomas to objectively monitor the investigations,” it said. Following this, Thomas has offered to recuse himself from supervising the probe. Incidentally, Thomas worked as Telecom Secretary under the disgraced former Telecom Minister A Raja, now in custody as an accused in the 2-G case.

Unresolved puzzle

The unresolved puzzle is why the selection committee headed by Manmohan Singh, with Home Minister P Chidambaram as its member, doggedly overlooked Lok Sabha Leader of opposition (LOP) Sushma Swaraj’s strong reservations on the appointment of Thomas. It is a fact that Thomas is yet to be held guilty as the matter has been pending for years without any hope of a conclusion - so peculiar of Indian judicial system.

Chidambaram says no sanction of prosecution was given and there is no chargesheet against Thomas. “It was brought to the notice of the Committee during the discussion that although the case was registered, no sanction of prosecution was granted by the NDA Government from December 1999 to May, 2004 and by the UPA government subsequently,” the Home Minister goes on record admitting that the UPA-2 was well aware of the “taint” in the CVC’s career.

Prior to the Home Minister’s comment,  the Central Government played hide and seek on the issue giving an impression in the Supreme Court that the allegations against Thomas in the Pamolein case  did not come up during the  selection committee meeting on September 4, 2010. A strong rebuttal from Swaraj who threatened to file an affidavit on the issue forced the Home Minister to clarify that the Government was indeed well-aware of the charges and that it made the selection despite its knowledge of CVC’s “antecedents”.

A Government which “knows” and goes ahead with a debatable decision must face the public and political scrutiny. Why did the Government brush aside “the timely warnings “ from Swaraj and opted for the controversial Thomas overlooking others in contention?  Hints are being dropped that it may have been done at the behest of the 10, Janpath. Be that as it may, the selection committee with the Prime Minister as its head has certainly not come out with flying colours on the issue.

Untenable position

The Supreme Court’s guidelines for the selection of the CVC that require active and constructive engagement of  LOP was overlooked.  In fact, Chidambaram maintains that it is not obligatory on the part of the selection committee to please the LOP or to build a consensus.  The Home Minister justifies the selection of the current CVC by referring to the appointment of an NHRC Chairman where, he says, the majority decided the issue even after two members disagreed with the selection.  But there are many who feel the question over mode of appointment is far from closed. “The current debate on the CVC, which is before the Supreme Court, relates to whether a person should have unimpeachable integrity and whether he should be selected unanimously or by majority. Our political leaders have corrupted every statutory institution, which we have got to put checks and balances in the system,” says former CVC N Vittal.

CPI MP D Raja describes the CVC’s position as untenable after a string of queries raised by Supreme Court. “The way he is defending himself by comparing himself to the chargesheeted MPs is ridiculous. The MPs are elected, if they are guilty they will go to jail or be sent home by people,” says Raja. He defends the MPs against the CVC. “Now, if the CVC is proved guilty, what happens to all the cases he has disposed? Will they be reviewed? The MPs are not going to decide the fate of anyone like the CVC. The question is of the institution of CVC not of Thomas alone,” he  says. 

The wide sweep of CVC’s power and jurisdiction ought to have forced the Centre to press the red button before going for a selection, which had all the potential of turning controversial. The Centre is in a terrible bind now. Jacob is not quitting, refusing to obey the dispensation, which in the first place appointed him to the post. A CVC cannot be automatically sacked by the Government. The Centre is now looking at the Supreme Court to rescue it from the mess it has created for itself.

Set up by the Government in February 1964, on the recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, headed by  K. Santhanam, the CVC has been a statutory body since August 25, 1998.

The Jurisdiction of the CVC covers members of All India Service – IAS, IPS and other personnel of lower ranks and senior public sector executives.

The controversy has undoubtedly undermined the authority of the CVC and raised concerns over quality of governance in the country. But Vittal sees a glimmer of hope in the current impasse: “I am of the opinion that the solution lies in transparency and TINA. There is no alternative (TINA) but to select the right person, not just for CVC, but for all constitutional posts. The heads of key institutions such as Supreme Court, Election Commission and Comptroller and Auditor General should not join any profitable post after completing their term. I see a solution emerging in the current CVC controversy itself thanks to the Supreme Court and the media.”

A setback to the fight against corruption

SC steps in to check and balance