CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

Introduction

Corruption is one of the main hinderances to the progress of the nation and
malpractice in the administration of public sector by civil servants. It is as old as the
existence of man himself and being a growing and extending evil in the developing society, it
disfigures the shape of a legislation and creates immorality, misconduct, disintegration, in-
devotion, dissatisfaction and faulty action among civil and public servants and tends to breed
doubt in public institutions and undermines ethical principles.

The term Corruption is defined to be “the act of an official or fiduciary person who
unlawfully and wrongfully uses their station or character to procure some benefit for
themselves or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.”1

It tends to exist at different levels of government, in different departments and efforts

to curb this is being made by various legislations like, The Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, and various other legislations enacted to consolidate the law relating to the prevention
and control of corruption. Further governmental institutions have been established to deal
with corruption.

Evolution of Vigilance Commission

In India, after the peaceful transfer of power from the British the then government of
India had taken charge in the situation enriched with patriotism and national interest. But it
has to face, grave problems raised after the partition of country. Reconstruction measures
were to be affected in the absence of many senior and experienced officials. However, in
dealing with corruption problems prompt actions were initiated.

Under the prevention of corruption act 1947 the Special Police Establishment 2 was
authorized to investigate offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) 3 and 16 other central acts
besides offences in 1963. Growing needs was necessitated for the central police agency not
only to investigate the cases of bribery and corruption, but also to investigate violation of
Central Fiscal Laws, Major frauds with regard to Government of India departments, Passport
frauds, Crimes on the high seas etc.
1
Black’s Law Dictionary.
2
The Delhi Special Police Establishment derived its force from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946.
3
IPC- Indian Penal Code (1860) section for offences.
 Thus in 1962 the Santhanam Committee was established to combat corruption in the
Indian Government, on the recommendation on Lal Bahadur Shastri. The Committee was
given the responsibility to recommend reforms for investigating corruption cases and
recommending reforms to India’s criminal justice system.

The Santhanam Committee Report is a landmark document within the Indian Anti-
corruption movement and based on the recommendation of ‘Santhanam’ committee on
Prevention of Corruption’ the ministry of home affair, established Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI)4 by a resolution passed on parliament on April 1963.Thereafter with a
view to advice and guide central government agencies in the field of vigilance based on the
recommendation of Santhanam committee, Central Vigilance Commission was set up by
Government in the year 1964.5

Santhanam Committee Recommendations

The Santhanam Committee in its Report observed that the main effort for checking
corruption must come from within the Ministry/Department and that it is important to be
continuously on the watch for sensitive sports rather than merely taking action when some
case comes to notice.

The Committee observed the following:

a. Administrative delays must be reduced to the extent possible and firm action
should be taken to eliminate causes of delay.

b. Each ministry should undertake a review of existing procedures and practices to

find out causes of delay, points at which delay occurs and devise steps to
minimize the same.

c. Time limits should be prescribed and these should be strictly adhered to; these
responsible for delays should be called to account.

d. Levels at which files are to be processed and manner of decision making have
been recommended.

The committee also recommended that:

4
Central Bureau of Investigation founded on 1st August 1963.
5
Recommendations of Santhanam Committee CVC in 1964.
 i. Minister reviews their regulatory function and whether the manner of discharge
of those functions can be improved.

ii. While recognizing that it may not be possible to completely eliminate

discretion, it should be possible to devise a system of discretion to a minimum.

iii. That a serious attempt be made to educate citizens about their rights and
responsibilities and make arrangements to enable citizens access to the
administration without having to go through intermediaries.

Other preventive measures listed in the report include

a) Recruitment of officers/officials with high integrity

b) Informal codes of conduct for different categories of government servants.

c) Having agencies where a genuine complainant can seek redressal and protection
from harassment.

d) Easy availability of forms required by the public for obtaining licenses etc.

e) Ban on government servants accepting private employment after retirement

among other.

Significant developments have taken place since the recommendations of the

Santhanam committee were made and based on this the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain and
others V. Union of India6 criticized the arbitrary role of CBI and directed that CVC should be
given a supervisory role over CBI.

Further, the Santhanam Committee Recommendations led to the promulgation of an

ordinance in 1998, by which, statutory status was conferred on CVC and powers to exercise,
superintendence over functioning of Delhi Special Police Establishment, CBI and also to
review the progress of the investigation pertaining to alleged offences under the prevention of
corruption Act, 1988. Finally, the commission was given statutory status by the enactment of
“The Central Vigilance Act, 2003”.

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003

Object of the Act

6
Vineet N2carain & ors. V. UOI, 1996 SCC (2) 199, JY 1996 (1) 708.
 The Central Vigilance Act, 2003 is an Act to provide for the constitution of a Central
Vigilance Commission to inquire or cause inquiries to be conducted into offences alleged to
have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of
public servants of the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central
Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the
Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The CVC is
currently the highest anti-corruption body in India.

It works on the policy of “Zero Tolerance Against Corruption”.

Composition of Central Vigilance Commission

The Central Vigilance Commission was constituted in the year 1964 and subsequently
received its statutory status by the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee report 7 to
exercise the powers conferred upon, and to perform the functions assigned to it under this Act
of 2003.

CVC is headed by a Central Vigilance Commissioner who acts as Chairperson and he is

assisted by two Vigilance Commissioners, who are the members of the Commission 8. At
present the Central vigilance Commissioner is Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava

Composition of Central Vigilance Commission

1. Central Vigilance Commissioner Chairperson
2. Vigilance Commissioners (2) Members

The Vigilance Commissioner shall act as Central Vigilance Commissioner in the

following circumstances:9

i. If the office of Central Vigilance Commissioner is vacant due to his death,

resignation or otherwise;

ii. The Central Vigilance Commissioner is unable to discharge his functions due to
him being absent on leave;

Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioners

7
S.3, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
8
S.4(1), Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
9
S.10, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
 a. Appointment

The President of India appoints the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the
Vigilance Commiss -ioners on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, Home
Minister and the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha. The Central Vigilance
Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners shall be appointed from amongst
persons10

1. Who have knowledge and experience in the matters relating to vigilance, policy
making and administration including police administration and have been or are
in
i. an All-India Service;

ii. any civil service of the Union;

iii. a civil post under the Union;

2. Who have held office or are holding office in a corporation established by or
under any Central Act or a Government company owned or controlled by the
Central Government and persons who have expertise and experience in finance
including insurance and banking, law, vigilance and investigations.
A Secretary shall be appointed to the Commission on terms and conditions to
exercise such powers and discharge such duties as the Commission may by
regulations specify in this behalf.

b. Terms and conditions of Service

The Central Vigilance Commissioner shall hold office for a term of 4 years from the
date of entering office or 65 years of age, whichever earlier, and shall be ineligible for
reappointment.11
Vigilance Commissioners shall also hold office for a term of 4 years from the date of
entering office or until 65 years of age, whichever earlier. However, they shall be eligible
for reappointment as the Central Vigilance Commissioner provided under s.4(1) wherein
it states that, the term of the vigilance commissioner, if appointed as the central vigilance
commissioner, shall not be more than four years in aggregate as the vigilance
commissioner and the central vigilance commissioner.

Term of Office of members

10
S.3(3) and s.4 of Central Vigilance Act, 2003.
11
S.5, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
 1 Central Vigilance 4 years term of 65 Ineligible for reappointment
. Commissioner years of age,
whichever earlier
2 Vigilance 4 years term or 65 Eligible for reappointment as Central
. Commissioner years of age, Vigilance Commissioner (aggregate
whichever earlier term as CVC and VC shall not exceed 4
years)

The Central Vigilance Commissioner may resign by writing to the President or may
be removed from office in the manner provided in the Act.12
Once the Central Vigilance Commissioner ceases to hold office he shall be ineligible
for:
i. Any diplomatic assignment
ii. Appointment as administrator of a Union Territory and such other
appointments, or
iii. Employment to any office of profit under the Government of India or
Government of a State.
c. Salaries and Allowances
The Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be entitled to salary same as that of
Chairman of Union Public Service Commission.13
The Vigilance Commissioners shall be entitled to salary same as that of
members of Union Public Service Commission.14

d. Removal

Any Vigilance Commissioner can be removed from his office only by order of
the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme
Court has been referred the matter and an inquiry is conducted. The result of the
inquiry is such that the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance
Commissioner needs to be removed. The President may suspend from office, and if
deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the Central
12
S.6, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
13
S.5(7), Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
14
Ibid.
 Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner in respect of whom a
reference has been made to the Supreme Court until the President has passed orders
on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.15

The President may, by order, remove Central Vigilance Commissioner or any

Vigilance Commissioner from office if such person

i. Adjudged an insolvent

ii. Convicted of an offence involves moral turpitude

iii. During his term of office engages in any paid employment outside the office

iv. Opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of

infirmity of mind or body

v. has acquired financial or other interest as is likely to affect

prejudicially his functions.
e. Power to make Rules

The central Government may, in consultation with the commission, make rules with
respect to the number of members of members of the staff of the commission and their
conditions of service.16

Jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Commission

For the purpose of performing the functions and duties under the Act, the commission’s
jurisdiction extends to the following persons17:

i. Managers and above in General Insurance Companies

ii. Senior Divisional Managers and above in Life Insurance Corporations

iii. Members of All India Service serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and
Group A officers of the Central Government

iv. Officers of the rank of Scale V and above in the Public Sector Banks

15
S.6, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
16
S.7, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
17
As notified by Central Government.
 v. Officers drawing a salary of Rs.8700/- p.m. and above on Central Government D.A.
pattern, as on the date of the notification and as may be revised from time to time in
Societies and other Local Authorities

vi. Officers in Grade D and above in Reserve Bank of India, NABARD and SIDBI

vii. Chief Executives and Executives on the Board and other officers of E-8 and above in
Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ Public Sector Undertakings

viii. Chief Executives and Executives on the Board and other officers of E-7 and above in
Schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ Public Sector Undertakings

Functions and Powers of Central Vigilance Commission

The Central Vigilance Commission shall perform the following functions18:

a. Power to Exercise superintendence over Delhi Special Police Establishment

The Central Vigilance Commission shall exercise superintendence over the functioning of
the Delhi special police establishment insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences
alleged to have been committed under the prevention of corruption Act, 1988, or an offence
with which a public servant namely19 –

i. Members of all India- services serving in connection with the affairs of the union
ii. Group 'A' officers of the Central Government;
iii. Such level of officers of the corporations established by or under any central Act,
Government companies,
iv. Societies and other local authorities, owned or controlled by the central
Government, as that Government may, by notification in the official Gazette,
specify in this behalf;

may, under the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the
same trial;

b. Power to give directions the Delhi Police Establishment

The Central Vigilance Commission shall give directions to the Delhi special police
establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under sub-
section (1) of section 4 of the Delhi special police establishment act, 1946.
18
S.8, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
19
S.8(2), Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
 However, while exercising the powers of superintendence under clause(a) or giving
directions under clause (b), the commission shall not exercise powers in such a manner so as
to require the Delhi special police establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a
particular manner20;

c. Power to Inquire or Investigate

The Central Vigilance Commission may inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be

made, on a reference made by the Central Government, wherein it is alleged that a public
servant being an employee of the Central Government or a Corporation established by under
any Central Act, Government company, society and any local authority owned or controlled
by that Government, has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
or an offence with which a public servant may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
be charged at the same trial;

d. Power to Inquire or Investigate against civil servants or officers of Central

Government mentioned u./s.8(2)

Inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint, against any
official belonging to such category of officials specified in s.8(2) 21, where it is alleged that he
has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and an offence with
which a public servant specified in s.8(2) may, under the code of criminal procedure, 1973,
be charged at the same trial;

e. Power to Review the Progress of Investigation

The Central Vigilance Commission shall review the progress of investigations conducted
by the Delhi Special Police Establishment into offences alleged to have been committed
under the prevention of corruption Act, 1988 and an offence with which a public servant may,
under the code of criminal procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial;

f. Power to Review the Progress of Application

20
Proviso clause under s.8(1)(b) - Provided that while exercising the powers of superintendence under clause
(a) or giving directions under this clause, the Commission shall not exercise powers in such a manner so as to
require the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner;
21
Ibid. at 18.
 The CVC shall review the progress of application pending with the competent authorities
for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

g. Power to Tender Advice

Tender advice to the Central Government, Corporations established by or under any Central
Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the
Central Government on such matters as may be referred to it by that Government, said
Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central
Government or otherwise;

h. Power to exercise superintendence over Vigilance Administration of various

Ministries

Exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of the various Ministries of the
Central Government or corruption established by or under any Central Act, Government
companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government;

However, nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to authorize the

commission to exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration in a manner not
consistent with the directions relating to vigilance matters issued by the Government and to
confer power upon the commission to issue directions relating to any policy matters22.

Proceedings of Central Vigilance Commission

The Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court. Every proceeding before the
Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding. Hence the Commission has the
power to23:

a. summon and enforce the attendance of any person;

b. require discovery and production of any document;

22
Proviso clause, s.8(1)(h) – Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to authorize the
commission to exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration in a manner not consistent with the
directions relating to vigilance matters issued by the Government and to confer power upon the commission to
issue directions relating to any policy matters
23
S.9, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
 c. receive evidence on affidavits;

d. requisition any public record or a copy from court, and

e. issue commissions for examination of witnesses etc.

The proceedings of the Commission shall be conducted at its headquarters. The

Commission shall abide by the rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of the business
as provided by regulations.

If the Central Vigilance Commissioner is for any reason unable to attend any meeting
of the Commission, the senior most Vigilance Commissioner present at the meeting, shall
preside at the meeting.

No act or proceeding of the Commission shall be invalid merely by reason of-

i. any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of, the Commission; or

ii. any defect in the appointment of a person acting as the Central Vigilance
Commissioner or as a Vigilance Commissioner; or

iii. any irregularity in the procedure of the Commission not affecting the merits of
the case.

Power relating to inquiries

The Commission shall, while conducting any inquiry referred to in clauses (b)
and (c) of sub- section 8, have all the power of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely24;

(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and
examining him on oath:

(b) Requiring the discovery and production of any document;

(c) Receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) Requistioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;

(e) Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or other document; and

(f) Any other matter which may be prescribed.

24
S.11, Central Vigilance Commission Act,2003.
Advisory Role of Central Vigilance Commission –

The Supreme Court has time and again stated that the recommendations of the Central
Vigilance Commission i.e., of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner is merely advisory in nature
and not binding on a disciplinary authority.25

The same was slightly modified and held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Alok Kumar26 wherein it was held that unless the rule otherwise requires, advice of the Chief
Vigilance Commissioner is not binding. The advice tendered by the CVC is merely to enable
disciplinary authority to proceed in accordance with law. Even if an action is taken without
consulting the Vigilance Commissioner, it will necessarily not vitiate the order of removal
passed after inquiry by the departmental authority.

Another important point to be noted is that Grant of Sanction is only an administrative

function wherein the facts collected during the course of investigation is brought before the
sanctioning authority. The process being an administrative act, opportunity of hearing to the
accused does not arise.27 The same also applies to employees of Central Government.

However, no court can take cognizance of an offence against a public servant without
such previous sanction. In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay28it was held that “a grant of sanction is
not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of
protection of government servants against frivolous prosecution and the aforesaid
requirements must be strictly complied before any prosecution could be launched against a
public servant.

In the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar 29 and State of M.P. v. Sheetal
Sahai30 it was held that an accused facing prosecution of offence under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 or 1988 Act, cannot claim an immunity on the ground of want of
sanction, if he ceases to be a public servant on the date on which the court took cognizance of
the said offences. But the position is different where s.197 of Crpc. has application i.e., with
regard to offence committed by member of armed force. Protection under s.197 is available

25
Satyendra Chandra Jain v. Punjab National Bank, (1997) 11 SCC 306, para 4, 5.
26
(2010) 5 SCC 349, para 79.
27
State v. M. Krishna Mohan, (2007) 14 SCC 677, para 34.
28
AIR 1984 SC 684, 697: (1984) 2 SCC 183.
29
(2006) 1 SCC 557, para 17, 19.
30
(2009) 8 SCC 617, para 61: 2009 (10) JT 388.
only when the alleged act done by public servant is reasonably connected with discharge of
his official duty.31

Role of Central Vigilance Commission in preventing corruption – Extent of

its success

The CVC, in order to fulfil its goal of preventing corruption has been taking various
steps to curb corruption like initiating the Vigilance Week/ awareness week is observed by the
Central Vigilance Commission every year in the month of October. The week includes Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel’s birth anniversary which is on October 31. The motive behind the
initiative is to:

i. Take an Integrity Pledge by all government ministries and organisations;

ii. Spread the words on prevention of corruption across the nation;

iii. Conduct workshops and campaigns for government employees and other
stakeholders; on policies/procedures of the organization and preventive vigilance
measures;

iv. Establish Integrity Clubs in schools and colleges to educate against corruption; and

v. Make aware, Gram Sabhas and to sensitize the rural citizens about the ill-effects of
corruption;

However, despite the efforts of CVC, there has been inconsiderable delay in departmental
proceeding and enormous delays in prosecution at CVC, in this the corrupt take advantageous
loopholes to escape from law.

 Thus, to prevent delay in decision making in processing of vigilance cases it is

considered as misconduct under conduct rules and it is liable to attract penal action.
Yet the total pending cases under investigation at CBI level are 678 as on 31.12.2020.
In which more than two years are 233 cases.
 Reason for delays is attributed to over load works, insufficient man power and
receiving letters and examining witnesses etc. But they are unacceptable since there
are prescribed more time limits.

31
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. UOI, (2005) 8 SCC 202: AIR 2005 SC 4413, para 9 to 11 and 20.
  The CVC and its agencies are required to upkeep morale, good conduct and
humanitarian consideration for maintaining transparency and accountability in their
affair.
 Though there are Meritorious activities in public interest on the part of CVC, existing
draw backs are manifold.

Challenges faced in the Central Vigilance Commission

i. There is no fairness and transparency in selection and appointment of Chief

Vigilance officers.

ii. Its function is only, not advisory, not investigate. It solely depends upon the
investigate machinery of the organization concerned that is mostly led by the
biases, prejudices and directions of the high ups of the organization. So, danger of
lack of transparency and justice looms large even in the recommendations of the
CVC based on the investigations and the reports of the Departmental inquiries.

iii. Emphasis cannot be laid on finding of Vigilance Commissioner.

iv. Safeguard from wrong, biased and prejudiced actions against honest and sincere
employees cannot be ensured by the CVC.
v. Protection of lives of the Whistle blowers against the corrupt officers cannot be
ensured.

vi. No, yardstick to identify the false complaints against innocent employees has
yet been evolved.
vii. Use of catalytic attitude in one and all cases reported by the organisations,
instead of being analytical in cases reported for vigilance advice.
viii. Stress on stringent penalties in most of the cases received for Vigilance advice,
rather than evolving methods of reformation of the acts and behaviours of the
employees;
ix. Lack of initiatives in involving methods of preventive vigilance to curb
frauds and corruption in various organisations. The CVC restricts mostly up to
the publishing of the articles of the CVOs containing their theoretical
perceptions, instead of practical measures taken or to be adopted to prevent
frauds and corruption.
Conclusion
Mere enactment of anti-corruption laws cannot curb corruption. Perfectly framed
strong machinery is essentially needed to enforce and implement those laws effectively. The
Central Vigilance Commission tenders it's advice after a careful and thorough understanding
of the facts on the cases received by it. In fact in a vast majority of cases the disciplinary
authority accepts the Commission's advice.

However, Commission has noticed in some cases, either the consultation mechanism
with the Commission was not adhered to in respect of officers who are covered under its
normal jurisdiction or there was none acceptance of the Commission advice. There are cases
where the Commission had advised initiation of major penalty proceedings, as a first stage
advice, but the department without consulting the Commission at the second stage dropped
the cases and exonerated the officer. The Commission has been taking every conceivable step
to ensure honesty and transparency in the functioning of the government organization through
effective vigilance administration. The Commission from time to time issues appropriate
instructions, plugging loopholes and bringing about systemic improvement. But the fact
remains that over all role of the Commission is only an advisory one with limited statutory
authority to enforce its recommendation. Central Vigilance Commission is a tooth less body.

At present the status of CVC is weak since it is not a legislative body. It is always
essential to have a strong and an independent ombudsman system having constitutional
sanction which has its own autonomy. The status of the Vigilance Commission should be
improved by giving it a legal status and by removing it from the clutches of the executive and
politics as a strong mechanism is highly essential to fight the corruption and misuse of power
by holders of high officers.