Days after it pushed a new law to scrap collegium system of judges’ appointment citing lack of transparency, the government got a taste of its own medicine on Thursday when the Supreme Court questioned its move to appoint Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) through an “in-house” selection panel that was prone to nepotism and keeping good talent out.
“The problem is that every system which is confined to in-house procedure for appointments, the criticism has all along been about lack of transparency. If transparency is the hallmark of the selection process and if an existing system is criticised on this ground, why should it not be followed by you?” a bench led by Chief Justice R M Lodha said.
The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton F Nariman, said: “India is a country with a huge pool of talent. The public now demands transparency. Sunlight is not reaching a common man residing in one remote corner of the country like this. Why do you deprive him of the sunlight? How will an extremely talented man become visible without the sunlight?”
The court told Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that howsoever big or small an institution be, the criticism right now seemed to be about transparency and if that is so, the government should set its own house in order.
“Criticism has been about lack of transparency and hence nepotism, favouritism and good talent being kept out. If that is the criticism, why not make every system more transparent?” said the bench.
The court was adjudicating a PIL by NGO ‘Centre for Integrity, Governance and Training in Vigilance Administration’. Questioning the selection process for the post of CVC and a Vigilance Commissioner, the NGO had sought a stay on the appointments. It cited the July 21 letter issued by the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, to other Secretaries in the government to recommend names for the posts. The plea stated that only bureaucrats were going to be considered for appointment.
Rohatgi, while assuring the court that the government will not make any appointment till the issue is decided, sought to defend the system, contending that it was not practical to make public advertisements for all such positions and that the selection was being made as per the guidelines framed three years ago.
The bench, however, observed that the guidelines may not meet the legislative objective of ensuring transparency in selection. It said the power seemed to have been given to the Secretaries to decide who should be considered and if they chose not to sponsor a name, a person, irrespective of his competence, would never be considered.
“You have restricted the selection but we want the legislative policy to be effectively and objectively implemented. You have also said no application shall be entertained if it is sent directly. So a person’s application sent independently will never get addressed. Also, there seems to be no uniform yardsticks of shortlisting the candidates since 36 of your Secretaries will be furnishing their own list of people. Where is the uniformity?” it said.
When asked, the AG said the selection process will take at least one more month and that he would file his formal reply on the NGO’s application on the validity of the selection process. “Just see that the procedure of appointment does not get crystallised till the next date of hearing,” said the bench, as Rohatgi said there was no question of making any appointment when the matter was being heard in the court. The bench fixed October 14 to hear the matter further.