Centre restricting choice for CVC: PIL

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to respond to allegations that efforts were underway to appoint the central vigilance commissioner (CVC) through a non-transparent procedure that severely restricted the zone of consideration.
A bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman said this appeared to be in contrast to the procedure adopted by giving wide publicity for filling the Lokpal post and asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi to respond to the charges on Thursday.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani and advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner NGO ‘Centre for Integrity, Governance and Training in Vigilance Administration’, cited the July 21 letter of personnel department secretary to secretaries of other departments seeking names for empanelment for the post of CVC and vigilance commissioner.
The vacancies will arise after the retirement of CVC Pradeep Kumar and vigilance commissioner J M Garg. The AG said he knew nothing about it and promised to get back to the court on Thursday.
The petitioners said by not giving wide publicity to inviting names for empanelment and subsequent consideration by the high-powered committee, which comprises the prime minister, Lok Sabha Speaker and leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, the government was trying to adopt a non-transparent method and attempting to restrict the zone of consideration.
By writing only to the secretaries of different departments of the central government, the process excluded the suggestions of state governments and also excluded independent experts who could have applied for the post. The petitioner said the stipulation that CVC or VC must have experience in vigilance field was given a go-by and also debarred most eminent retired bureaucrats.
The apex court had in a recent judgment said that selection of CVC should not be restricted to civil servants alone, the petitioner said and sought a stay on the process initiated for filling the posts.
Though Rohatgi said he had little knowledge about the DoPT secretary’s July 21 letter, the annexed letter said that “based on the statutory provisions of the CVC Act, 2003, and the directive of the Supreme Court, after discussion with the attorney general for India, the DoPT has prepared guidelines and the procedure for filling up the post of CVC and VC in the Central Vigilance Commission”.
The guidelines so formulated categorically ruled out any independent expert applying for the post of CVC and VC, which together supervise the functioning of CBI. It said, “No application will be entertained by DoPT directly from any applicant under any category.”
The NGO’s PIL seeking adopting a transparent procedure and selecting persons having experience in the field of vigilance was entertained by the apex court on August 4 and the Centre was asked to respond to it.