New Delhi: Two back-to-back Supreme Court judgments have come as a shot in the arm for the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), bolstering its image as the country’s highest anti-corruption watchdog.
On Thursday, justices G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly set aside an application for appointing a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinize or even supervise the Central Bureau of Investigation’s probe in the second-generation spectrum case. The court, instead, said: “In future, copies of the reports of the investigation conducted by the CBI and other agencies (in the 2G case) shall be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes. Within next one week, the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Senior Vigilance Commissioner shall examine the report and send their observations to this court in sealed envelopes, which shall be considered along with the reports of the CBI and other investigating agencies.”
A high-ranking CVC official said the commission is ecstatic about the trust reposed in it by the apex court.
“Under the CVC Act, we are only supposed to supervise CBI. But for the first time the other agencies will send us their reports. It shows our credibility that had taken a hit with the appointment of P.J. Thomas as the CVC,” the official said on condition of anonymity. “This will certainly help in restoring our image as anti-corruption watchdog.”
Last year, the Supreme Court annulled the appointment of Thomas as CVC over allegations of corruption.
“The court judgements have strengthened our mandate and reiterated our role in supervising investigations against corruption. Though such powers were already with us under the CVC Act, we feel more empowered,” said another high-ranking CVC official, who too spoke on condition of anonymity.
The CVC got another boost on Tuesday when the apex court ruled that any citizen has the right to seek prosecution of any official accused of corruption and set a time-frame for the government to respond. If a sanctioning authority did not grant sanction within four months, a complainant could deem that sanction to prosecute a public official had been granted.
The government is yet to give sanction for prosecution in 22 CVC cases, some pending since 2009.
The CBI is awaiting sanction for prosecution in at least 169 cases.
The first CVC official quoted above said that in the State versus Vineet Naraian case, the Supreme Court had issued similar directions. “After taking note from the Vineet Naraian case, the government gave the statutory status to CVC and enacted the CVC Act. But it did not amend the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act to provide timeline under which sanction of prosecution will be awarded by the competent authority,” the official said. “This time, too, the court has asked the government to amend the PC Act.”
Unless the amendments are made in the PC Act, the court’s directions will not always be binding, the official added.
sahil.m@livemint.com