Research Project
On
Guardians of Integrity: Evaluating the Role and Reform
of the Central Vigilance Commission
Subject
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Submitted By:
Name of the Student: Shruti Gupta
Batch: 4th Year BA LLB
Date of Submission:17th October 2024
Submitted To:
Faculty Guide: Prof. (Dr.) Dinkar Gitte
Declaration
I hereby declare that the work reported in this project report entitled “Guardians of
Integrity: Evaluating the Role and Reform of the Central Vigilance Commission”
submitted at KLE Law College, Navi Mumbai is an outcome of my work carried out under
the supervision of Prof. Dinkar’s of Supervision. I have duly acknowledged all the sources
from which the ideas and extracts have been taken. To the best of my understanding, the
project is free from any plagiarism issue.
SHRUTI GUPTA
Date- 17th October 2024
Place- Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai
PLAGIARISM DECLARATION
I, Shruti Gupta, confirm that this Research paper and the work presented in it are my own
achievement.
1. Where I have consulted the published work of others this is always clearly attributed.
2. Where I have quoted from the work of others the source is always given. With the
exception of such quotations this dissertation is entirely my own work.
3. I have acknowledged all main sources of help.
4. If my research follows on from previous work or is part of a larger collaborative
research project, I have made clear exactly what was done by others and what I have
contributed myself.
5. I am aware and accept the penalties associated with plagiarism.
Date: 17th October 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
1.1 Definition and Importance of Vigilance
1.2 The Problem of Corruption in India
1.3 Establishment of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
2. History of the Creation of CVC
2.1 Pre-CVC Anti-Corruption Mechanisms
2.2 Establishment of CBI and SPE
2.3 Structural Changes Post-CVC Formation
3. Jurisdiction of CVC
3.1 Scope of CVC’s Jurisdiction
3.2 Investigative Authority and Limitations
3.3 Role of CVC in Corruption Cases
4. CVC’s Structure and Functions
4.1 Composition of the CVC
4.2 Stages of Vigilance Oversight
4.3 Vigilance Department’s Organizational Structure
5. Challenges in Vigilance and Corruption Prevention
5.1 Limited Investigative Powers
5.2 Problems with Chief Vigilance Officer Appointments
5.3 Lack of Binding Recommendations
6. Complaints and Redressal Mechanism
6.1 Sources of Corruption Complaints
6.2 Handling of Complaints by the CVC
6.3 Action Against False Complaints
7. Recent Concerns and Suggested Reforms
7.1 Criticisms of the Selection Process for CVC
7.2 Calls for Amending the CVC Act
7.3 Proposals for Improving Transparency and Integrity in Appointments
8. CVC vs. CBI: A Comparison
8.1 CVC’s Role as an Advisory Body
8.2 CBI’s Role as an Investigative Agency
8.3 Differences in Powers and Jurisdiction
9. Judicial Interpretations and Case Law
9.1 Sunil Kumar v. State of West Bengal
9.2 Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh
9.3 State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak
10. Conclusion and Recommendations
10.1 Suggestions for Strengthening CVC’s Role
10.2 Need for Amending the CVC Act
10.3 Enhancing CVC’s Legal Status
Abstract:
This report delves into the role, history, and jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC) in India, emphasizing its crucial function in combating corruption and
maladministration within governmental structures. Established in 1964, the CVC serves as a
supervisory body tasked with ensuring integrity and accountability among public servants.
The report outlines the commission's composition, including the Central Vigilance
Commissioner and additional vigilance commissioners, and discusses the limitations of its
advisory role, highlighting the lack of investigative powers.
It further examines the legislative backdrop, the relationship between the CVC and the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the challenges the commission faces in fostering
public trust and combating corruption effectively. The analysis identifies significant issues,
such as the opaque appointment process for the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and the
commission's reliance on other agencies for investigative action. The report concludes by
recommending amendments to the CVC Act, advocating for a more transparent selection
process, enhanced powers, and legal status for the CVC to elevate its authority and efficacy.
Ultimately, this report underscores the necessity of reforming the CVC to ensure it can fulfill
its mandate of promoting integrity in public service and safeguarding against corruption in
the Indian administration.
Keywords- Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Corruption, Maladministration, Public
Servants, Governance, Integrity, Accountability, Chief Vigilance Commissioner,
Legislative Framework, Investigative Powers, Transparency, Public Trust, Reform,
Administrative Law, Anti-corruption Measures
INTRODUCTION
Vigilance in the context of any organization would mean keeping a watchful eye on the
activities of the officers and officials of the unit to ensure integrity of personnel in their
official transactions. Vigilance, in other words, is to ensure clean and prompt administrative
action towards achieving efficiency and effectiveness of the employees in particular and the
organization in general, as lack of Vigilance leans to waste, losses and economic decline1.
Corruption in the administration is a serious problem affecting Indian polity.Incorruptibility
is an essential requirement for public confidence in the administration of Government
departments. Government in order to strengthen the existing mechanism created Central
Vigilance Commission in February 19642. And the main concerns regarding formation of
CVC was to (a) Prevention of corruption and maintenance of integrity amongst Government
servants and (b) ensuring just and fair exercise of administrative powers vested in various
authorities by statutory rules. Here, two major matters were meant to be addressed, cases
related to corruption and cases related to maladministration but later was not accepted by the
Government. The vigilance commission has jurisdiction and powers in respect of matters to
which executive power of the center extends.
The Central Vigilance Commission comprises of: -
a) Central Vigilance Commissioner – chairperson;
b) Not more than three Vigilance Commissioners – Members; Secretary to the
Government of India,
1
Biplab Kumar Lenin, Scholar , Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur
Handbook of General vigilance for officers
2
The commission was appointed in 1962, which is a result of recommendations of the “committee on
prevention of corruption”(known as Santhanathan Committee”).
History of creation of CVC:
In 1963, by an executive resolution, The Government established the Central Bureau
of Investigation. Before 1963, there existed the special Police establishment under the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to investigate offences committed by the
Central Government servants while discharging their official duties. With the creation
of CBI, SPE was made a wing of the CBI for purposes of investigation; the CBI
derives its power from the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 19463. Under CVC, there
existed the Chief vigilance Officer in each ministry/department having a number of
vigilance officers under him. There existed Commissioners for departmental enquiries
attached to the ministry of Home Affairs for the purpose of conducting enquiries in
disciplinary proceedings against Government servants. After formation of
Commission, following changes were made: Commissioners for dept. inquiry was
transferred to administrative control of the commission. Vigilance officer in each
ministry came to be appointed in consultation with the commission. But its role is
limited. It is only advisory. The main tasks are coordination, supervision and advisory
rather than investigating the complaints itself, it has no adjudicating power nor power
to give sanctions for criminal prosecutions for offences committed by public servants
while discharging their official functions4. It has no machinery to investigate or
enquire into complaints of corruption except to a limited extent.
JURISDICTION OF CVC:
The Commission’s jurisdiction is co-terminus with the executive powers of the Union
therefore it extends to all matters. It can undertake any inquiry into any transaction in which a
Public Servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper or corrupt purpose; or
cause such an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint of corruption, gross
negligence, misconduct, recklessness, lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices or
misdemeanors on the part of a public servant. The Commission tenders appropriate advice to
3
Kartikeya Tanna (Tanna associates) , Research paper Reforms in the central bureau of investigation and
Establishment of independent prosecuting entity.
4
In Jammu & Kashmir, the Government Servants’ prevention of Corruption of 1975 provides for an anti-
corruption Tribunal to conduct inquiries into allegations of corruption and to recommended appropriate action
and a vigilance commission to conduct the investigations. The Tamil Nadu public Men (Criminal misconduct)
Act of1973 covered only political corruption, but it was repealed in 1977.
the concerned disciplinary authorities in all such matters having a definite or potential
vigilance angle and an element of corruption or criminal misconduct or malafide5.
CVC exercises superintendence over CBI in the matters relating to the investigation of the
offences alleged to have been committed under the prevention of Corruption Act – 19886.
CVC renders advice at two stages on vigilance matters:
a) FIRST STAGE: To consider investigation report and advice about the type of proceedings
(major/minor) to be initiated.
b) SECOND STAGE: To consider inquiry report and advice about the penalty to be imposed.
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT – STRUCTURE:
▪ Chief Vigilance Officer
▪ General Manager (Vigilance)
▪ Dy.Chief Vigilance Officer (Investigation)
▪ Dy. Chief Vigilance officer (Technical)
▪ Sr. Managers/Managers/Asst. Managers.
However with the increase in the scope of administration in India, a feeling has arisen in
the public mind that vesting of such vast powers in the administration has generated
possibilities and opportunities of abuse or misuse of power by administrative
functionaries resulting in maladministration and corruption7.
The CVC is primarily entrusted with the task of looking into matters of
corruption in administration. This is clarified in the official website of the CVC 8. It is
further clarified that “Complaints to the Commission are meant to result in punitive action
against the erring public servant(s). Relief as such in the matter to the complainant is only
5
http://www.oocities.com/kstability/projects/inquiry3/spchap1.html, last visited on 14th February 2011, Personal
Website of R.Kannan, on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks vis-à-vis the Role and Funcions of the
CVC.
6
http://www.cvc.nic.in/faqs.htm, last visited on 11th January 2011.
7
M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (Wadhwa & Co. Nagpur, New Delhi, Fifth edition,
2007)p905.
8
Complaint handling policy, http://cvc.nic.in/comp_policy.pdf as visited on 23rd September 2010.
incidental to the vigilance action. Redressal of grievances vis-à-vis Government
organizations or public sector enterprises should not be the focus of complaints to the
commission.”
CORRUPTION
‘Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept,
or attempts to obtain gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration as a motive or a
reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act or for showing or for bearing to
show, in the exercise of his official functions favour or disfavour to any person with the
Central or State Government or Parliament or Legislature of any State or with any public
servant as such9.
It is held to be the abuse of public office for private gain10.
Corruption is also described as the acquisition of forbidden benefits by officials or
employees, so bringing into question their loyalty to their employers
Complaints11:
Information about corruption, malpractices or misconduct on the part of public servants may
come to light from any source, such as: administrative authority, Complaints received or
intelligence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and by Police authorities,
inspection reports and stock verification surveys, Audit reports on Government accounts and
on the accounts of public undertakings, Reports of any irregularities in accounts revealed in the
routine audit of accounts e.g. tampering with records, over-payments, misappropriation of
money or materials.
Complaints received in the Central Vigilance Commission will be registered and initially
examined in the Commission. The Commission may decide, according to the nature of each
complaint, that12:
9
Section 161 of IPC describes corruption.
10
Definition of World bank on Corruption
11
Procedure to lodge a complaint, http://www.cvc.nic.in/lodgecomp.htm as visited on 25th September 2010.
12
http://cvc.nic.in/vigman/chapterii.pdf, last visited on 10th January 2011.
1. It should be sent for inquiry and disposal/report to the administrative
Ministry/Department concerned.
2. It should be sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation for inquiry/ Investigation.
3. Commission should undertake the inquiry itself.
The Government of India have reason to believe that a good many anonymous complaints are
false and malicious and that such complaints are not a reliable source of Information. Inquiries
into such complaints have an adverse effect on the morale of the services. The Government of
India have accordingly decided that no action should be taken on anonymous complaints
against Government servants13
ACTION AGAINST PERSONS MAKING FALSE COMPLAINTS:
There is remedial action available against those who send false petitions. If complaint made by
a public servant is found to be malicious, vexatious or unfounded, serious action may be
considered against the complaint14.
A person making a false complaint can be prosecuted on a complaint lodged with a court of
competent jurisdiction by the public servant to whom false complaint was made or by some
other public servant to whom he is subordinate15.
Alternately, if the complainant is a public servant, it may also be considered whether
departmental action should be taken against him as an alternative or in addition to prosecution.
Problems:
1. Appointment of Chief vigilance officer is not transparent and clear. As there does no
statutory requirement about the selection have to be unanimous or based on
consensus among the members of the committee.
2. Its function is only advisory, not investigative.
3. Emphasis is not given to finding of Vigilance Commissioner.
13
http://www.oocities.com/kstability/projects/inquiry/complaints2.html, last visited on 12th February 2011 on
How to conduct/defend Departmental Inquiries?
14
Section 182 IPC provides for prosecution of a person making a false complaint.
15
Section 195(1) (e) Cr. P.C.
Recently a group of eminent citizens have called for effective safeguards to maintain the
“purity of the selection process” for appointments to the post of the Chief Vigilance
Commissioner. There should be effective safeguards for maintaining the purity of the
process of selection for future appointments to the post, regardless of the merits of the current
appointment16.
It is not wisdom alone but public confidence in that wisdom which can support an
administration17. This statement underscores the importance of public confidence as a test of
the efficacy of administration. The fundamental principle of administrative law has always
remained the same, namely, that in a democracy, the people are supreme, and hence all State
authority must be exercised in the public interest18.
The CVC is not a creature of statute. His office is enmeshed with the executive of a state which
subjects him to political interference. The CVC has much weaker status than the ombudsman.
Additionally, the role of the Commission is restricted in that it encompasses only the advisory
function. No investigative powers are conferred upon it and its functions are confined to
exercising a general check and supervision over government department as compared to the
wider powers of the ombudsman19. The Commission also does not qualify as a ‘competent
authority’ to sanction criminal prosecutions for offences committed by public officials.
Furthermore, in a number of cases the SC has held that the Recommendation of the Chief
Vigilance Commissioner regarding question of punishment is not binding on disciplinary
authority20.
The CVC, entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the adherence to the most stringent
standards of probity, propriety and prudence by the various grades of functionaries in the
Central government and Public Sector Undertakings, should be a person above controversy and
of unsullied background and impeccable integrity. His selection and appointment should give
no room for even the faintest whiff of misgivings on any count whatsoever. The selection
process should not violate the spirit of the Central Vigilance Commission Act. “Although there
is no statutory requirement about the selection having to be unanimous or based on consensus
16
The Hindu, 18th September 2010, kolkata edition.
17
Thomas Jefferson told to James Monroe, 1824.
18
Justice Markandey Katju, Administrative Law and judical review of administrative action, (2005) 8 SCC
19
M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (Wadhwa & Co. Nagpur, New Delhi, Fifth edition,
2007) p 938
20
Sunil Kumar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1980 SC 1170, also see Satyendra Chandra Jain v. Punjab
National Bank, (1997) 11 SCC 306
among the members of the committee, there is an undeniable moral obligation on the part of
the representatives of the government on the committee not to proceed with the appointment in
case the Leader of the Opposition, on any reasonable ground, disagrees with the selection of
any particular individual.” 21
Need for Amending the Act
Amending the CVC Act has been suggested to provide for including the Vice- President of
India as the chairman and a nominee of the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection
committee. The selection must be by consensus among the members, and selection by the
majority of the members present should be adopted only in exceptional circumstances and for
reasons to be recorded in the committee's proceedings. The proceedings, along with full
particulars of persons considered for the preparation of the panel and the reasons based on
which the final selection was made, should be published. This would ensure that the
composition of the committee does not give a steam-roller majority to the government and that
the committee functions in a non-partisan and transparent manner.
The vigilance commission has jurisdiction and powers in respect of matters to which the
executive of the center extends. The following categories of employees come within the
commission’s purview: government servants employed in the ministries and departments or the
Government of India and Union Territories, employees of Public sector undertakings, statutory
corporations and port trusts. But as a practical matter, the commission has restricted itself to
cases pertaining only to: Gazetted Officers, employees of public undertakings and nationalized
banks etc. drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1000 per month and above.
The Central Vigilance Commissioner is to be appointed by President. The commission is
attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs, but it is not sub ordinate to any Ministry or
Department and has same measure of Independence and autonomy as the UPSC.
21
The Hindu, 18th September 2010, on “Call for safeguards in CVC selection process”
Difference between CVC and CBI:
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is an apex body constituted by the Government of India
for exercising general superintendence and control over vigilance matters in administration and
probity in public life. CVC was accorded statutory status with effect from 25.8.1998 through
“The Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998”22.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the prime investigation agency constituted by the
Central Government under DSPE Act 1946 for conducting investigation in special crimes and
corruption cases. Its jurisdiction has been extended to conduct investigation of the offences
alleged to have been committed under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and for other
offences entrusted by the Central Government.
Demerits of CVC:
Commission is an agency of Executive and not of the legislature. Ho owes his position to
executive will as it has no statutory basis. It has no investigation mechanism at its disposal;
depends upon other public agencies for the purpose.
In Sunil Kumar v. State of west Bengal23, An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into
certain charges against the appellant who was a member of Indian Administrative Service.
Report of enquiry was sent to Vigilance commissioner for his advice. Thereafter the
disciplinary authority, i.e. state Government came t conclusions. The appellant was reduced
from higher to lower salary in the same grade. He challenged the order, and contended that
consultation with Vigilance officer, who had no statutory status and Government, did not
furnish report of Officer. Court held that Disciplinary committee committed no irregularity, and
conclusions were not based on advice tendered by Vigilance officer, but arrived independently.
The preliminary findings of the disciplinary authority happened to coincide with the views of
Vigilance commissioner was neither here nor there24. If the commissioner’s report is not to be
taken into account at all by concerned authority or if it does not play any role in influencing its
mind, then consultation with him is an empty formality which serves no purpose,therefore,
22
http://cvc.nic.in/man04.pdf, Vigilance Manual Volume 1, Sixth edition 2005
23
AIR 1980 SC 1170
24
The govt. findings in this case were first in accord with view of Vigilance commissioner. The govt. changed
its mind later after consulting the Public Service Comission. The public service commission is a constitutionally
created body and consultation with the PSC is required in disciplinary matters. , see
M.P Jain, Indian Constitution Law, Ch.31
institution practically become otiose. PSC had a constitutional status, while Vigilance
Commissioner has merely an administrative status. And according to Natural Justice, which
requires decision making authority must apply its own mind, and ought not to be influenced by
others.
However present-day situation is very unsatisfactory. In order to avoid, options available are:
1. Government shouldn’t consult vigilance commissioner for drawing conclusions from record.
2. Vigilance commissioner be given a legal status. And provisions must be made in law for
consulting him.
Supreme Court held that Chief vigilance Commission cannot dictate the disciplinary authority
as to how they should exercise their power and what punishment they should impose on
delinquent officer25. Once again Supreme Court held that recommendation of Chief Vigilance
officer Commissioner regarding question of punishment is not binding on disciplinary
committee. The disciplinary proceedings against government servants are taken under Service
rules framed by Government under Art.309 of Constitution. 26Besides, a public servant can also
be prosecuted for bribery and corruption in a criminal court. With a view to expedite such
trials, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now replaced with P.C. Act) makes certain
provisions. As it is in the interest of public that corruption be eradicated, so also it is in the
public interest that honest public servants should be able to discharge their duties free from
false, frivolous, and malicious accusations. PCA thus seeks to balance both objectives. One
hand, it seeks to provide for certain safeguards against frivolous trials, other hand it seeks to
provide for expeditious trial of corruption cases. One such safeguard contained in Section 17 of
PCA is that before a public servant can be prosecuted for any specific offence 27, sanction of
State Government is necessary in case of a person who is employed in connection with the
affairs of a state and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State
Government. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function. Facts collected during the
course of investigation have to be brought before the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning
authority has to consider the material. The grant of sanction being an administrative act, the
25
Nagraj Shivarao Kargaji v. Syndicate bank, AIR 1991 SC 1507
26
Satyendra Chandra Jain v. Punjab national Bank, (1997) 11 SCC 306
27
The offences are those punishable under s.161 or s. 164 or s.165, IPC or s. 5(2) or 5(3A) of the PCA.
need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused, does not arise28. Similar is in case of
central Government Explaining the provision Supreme Court has said that sanction of that
competent authority alone is necessary which is competent to remove the public servant from
the office which he is alleged to have misused or abused for corrupt motive. Further the
authority, entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence
collected and other material before according sanction.
In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. state of Andra Pradesh29 SC has emphasized on two significant
aspects of of sanction for prosecution. First, any case instituted without a proper sanction must
fail as the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. Therefore, the prosecution must prove
that valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority. Secondly, the sanctioning
authority must be satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence.
the sanctioning authority at the time of giving sanction must be aware of the facts constituting
the offence and must apply its mind. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality. It is a
sacrosanct act which affords protection to the Government Servants against frivolous
prosecution. In State of Maharastra v. R.S. Nayak30 it was held that protection under section
197 is available only when alleged act done by public servant is reasonably connected with
discharge of his official duty31. For the interest of democratic government and its functioning,
the governor must act in such a case on his own.
28
Superintendent of Police (CAI) v. Deepak Chowdhary. AIR 1996 SC 186.
29
AIR 1979 SC677
30
AIR 1982 SC 1249
31
Centre for public interest litigation v. Union Of India, AIR 2005 SC 4413.
CONCLUSION
Considering the working of CVC (Central Vigilance commission), whose office is enmeshed
with powers, there are few suggestions:
• It is suggested amending the CVC Act to provide for including the Vice- President of India as
the chairman and a nominee of the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection
committee.
• The selection must be by consensus among the members, and selection by the
majority of the members present should be adopted only in exceptional
circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in the committee's proceedings.
• The proceedings, along with full particulars of persons considered for the
preparation of the panel and the reasons based on which the final selection was
made, should be published. This would ensure that the composition of the committee
does not give a steam-roller majority to the government and that the committee
functions in a non-partisan and transparent manner,
• The Central Vigilance Commissioner is to be appointed by President. The
commission is attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs, but it is not sub ordinate to
any Ministry or Department and has same measure of Independence and autonomy
as the UPSC
• Government shouldn’t consult vigilance commissioner only for drawing conclusions
from record.
• Vigilance commissioner be given a legal status. And provisions must be made in law
for consulting him.
• Status of CVC should be equal to Ombudsman.
