Sins of commission

Edit, Governance Now, Sept 16-30

Central vigilance commissioner’s appointment betrays government’s lack of interest in fighting corruption

This is a stain on the dignity of the CVC’s office which should be occupied by an officer with an unblemished record,” remarked Sushma Swaraj, leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, after registering her protest with president Pratibha Patil against the appointment of PJ Thomas as the central vigilance commissioner (CVC). It was too late by then as hours earlier Thomas had been sworn in to the office. But this aptly sums up the mood.

It was a historic moment in 1997 when the Supreme Court directed the government to involve the leader of opposition in selecting the CVC. The objective was to insulate the organisation (and hence the CBI over which it was given supervisory powers) at a time when the hawala scam rocked the nation. In the Vineet Narain case, the court had laid down the procedure: “Selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by a Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from a panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity to be furnished by the cabinet secretary. The appointment shall be made by the President on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee.” This then found its way to the CVC Act of 2003.

The spirit of this judgment was undermined when the prime minister and the home minister shot down Swaraj’s objections to Thomas’ candidature. They also ignored her plea that she was agreeable to any of the other two in the panel of candidates. This raises an interesting debate over whether the three-member selection committee’s “recommendation” has to be taken to mean “consensus” or a “majority decision”. Vineet Narain, the man behind the landmark 1997 judgment, is right in pointing out that if the “recommendation” were to mean “majority decision”, there is no relevance of the leader of opposition in the committee. After all, the prime minister and the home minister can decide for themselves and save the leader of opposition from an embarrassing situation.

Swaraj’s objection was about suitability of Thomas’ candidature. The apex court was specific that the CVC be selected from among “outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity”. He may have been honourably exonerated but there is no denying that Thomas was investigated for his role in the palm oil scam of Kerala some years back. More damagingly, it has now come to notice that as the telecom secretary he had sought the law ministry’s opinion on whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) can audit 2G spectrum scam, in which his minister A Raja is the prime suspect, on the ground that it was a policy formulation. The law ministry responded saying that 2G spectrum scam was not only beyond the jurisdiction of the CAG but also that of the CVC as it was indeed a policy matter. In such a situation it is natural to suspect that Thomas, who took charge as telecom secretary after the scam surfaced, was doing a cover-up job for his minister. Since Thomas’ predecessor Pratyush Sinha had referred the case to the CBI last year, it is no surprise that Swaraj’s party has raised a red flag saying he would, as the CVC, scuttle the CBI investigation.

Propriety and norms of good governance would suggest that the prime minister should have addressed these concerns before appointing Thomas. He didn’t.

This development is all the more worrisome because the CVC’s reputation as the apex body to fight corruption in the country is at an all-time low. Barring the expose on the Commonwealth Games contracts, it has done precious little in the past few years to inspire confidence. Hence the inevitable conclusions that it is time to revisit not only the selection mechanism of the CVC but also the relevance of CVC, given its status as an “advisory” body which can’t even register an FIR by itself.

But more important than that is the sincerity of the government to fight corruption. The way the Manmohan Singh government has tried to bulldoze corruption charges in the 2G spectrum scam, and now brazen its way through in the appointment of Thomas, probably a fresh round of public upraor against this traditional trait of the Congress governments is what can make a difference. But are we ready for that? That is a million dollar question we need to ask.