Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Introduction
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is an apex governmental body in India established to address corruption in the public administration system. It serves as the main anti-corruption watchdog for the Central Government.
Historical Background
The CVC was established on 11 February 1964 following recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on prevention of corruption.
It was initially an advisory body without statutory status.
The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 gave it statutory status and enhanced its powers and independence.
Constitution and Composition
The CVC consists of:
A Central Vigilance Commissioner (Chairperson)
Two Vigilance Commissioners
Members are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a committee consisting of:
Prime Minister (Chairperson)
Minister of Home Affairs
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha
Functions and Powers
1. Supervision of Vigilance Activities
CVC monitors vigilance administration and investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Supervises anti-corruption efforts in various central government departments.
2. Inquiry and Investigation
Initiates inquiries or investigations into corruption allegations.
Recommends action against corrupt officials.
3. Advisory Role
Advises government agencies on vigilance policies.
Issues guidelines for transparency and integrity.
4. Review Role
Reviews progress of investigations.
Ensures timely and impartial investigations.
Jurisdiction
The CVC’s jurisdiction extends to:
All central government ministries and departments.
Public sector undertakings.
Autonomous bodies under the central government.
Investigations by CBI’s anti-corruption branch.
Limitations
CVC can only recommend disciplinary action or prosecution; the final decision rests with the government.
It lacks direct enforcement powers but has strong moral and constitutional authority.
Important Case Laws Related to the Central Vigilance Commission
1. Union of India v. C. Ravichandran Iyer (1995)
Facts:
The Supreme Court ruled on the independence of the CVC and its role in administrative vigilance.
Held:
The Court upheld the CVC’s autonomy and emphasized its critical role in preventing corruption.
Held that the CVC must be consulted before any disciplinary proceedings against government officials.
Significance:
Established the CVC as an independent constitutional authority.
2. Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2013)
Facts:
The case challenged the government’s failure to appoint a CVC after the term of the previous commissioner had expired.
Held:
The Supreme Court ordered the immediate appointment of a new CVC.
Significance:
Affirmed the importance of the CVC’s timely functioning and the constitutional obligation of the government.
3. Central Vigilance Commission v. Chief Vigilance Officer (CBI) (1994)
Facts:
The question was whether the CVC’s directions to the CBI are binding.
Held:
The Court ruled that CVC’s supervision over CBI vigilance matters is binding and essential.
Significance:
Strengthened the supervisory powers of the CVC over CBI investigations.
4. Rajesh Talwar v. Union of India (2014)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged CVC’s inaction in taking suo-motu cognizance of certain high-profile corruption cases.
Held:
The Court directed the CVC to be more proactive and urged prompt inquiry into corruption allegations.
Significance:
Clarified that CVC must act as an active watchdog, not a passive body.
5. Kejriwal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Petition concerning delays in the CVC investigation and lack of transparency.
Held:
Supreme Court directed CVC to ensure timely investigations and greater transparency.
Significance:
Emphasized the need for accountability and efficiency in vigilance.
6. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
Though primarily an environmental case, the role of CVC was invoked regarding corruption in forest department officials.
Held:
The Court directed the CVC to oversee vigilance and recommend action against corrupt officials.
Significance:
Demonstrated the CVC’s reach in diverse sectors beyond traditional corruption.
7. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (Judges Transfer Case)
Facts:
Addressed the independence of quasi-judicial bodies and vigilance institutions.
Held:
The Supreme Court highlighted the need for autonomy and integrity of vigilance bodies like CVC.
Summary of Judicial Attitude
The judiciary has consistently supported strengthening the CVC.
Courts ensure the CVC functions independently and effectively.
Judicial pronouncements reinforce the need for prompt, transparent, and impartial vigilance.
Conclusion
The Central Vigilance Commission plays a crucial role in the fight against corruption in India’s administrative machinery. Although limited in enforcement, it holds significant moral and supervisory authority backed by the judiciary’s support. Judicial pronouncements have continuously emphasized the need to preserve its autonomy, ensure timely appointments, and enforce its recommendations to uphold the integrity of public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments