Who should be CVC?

The controversy involving the Central Vigilance Commissioner presents a good opportunity for a relook at the process of appointment to the post.

WHAT the Government of India did when it appointed P.J. Thomas Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) is inexplicable. For that public office, the government, naturally, ought to have looked for a person whose record did not have even the slightest of ambiguities, and such persons are not difficult to find. There are several civil servants whose integrity is unquestionable. The myth that all bureaucrats are corrupt is not just that, a myth, but also a stupid one.

So, what was it that made it necessary for the government to appoint P.J. Thomas when it knew he was one of those named in a case of corruption that the Supreme Court has stayed on a plea made by accused number one, former Chief Minister of Kerala K. Karunakaran?

Thomas may well be innocent, but the fact is that his name is on the charge sheet and will continue to be there until the case has been heard and the final order passed.

Sushma Swaraj, who as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha is a member of the three-member committee that selects the CVC, has her own reasons for objecting to Thomas' appointment, and these may or may not hold water. But Thomas' record does have a blemish of sorts, and the fact is that he was the Secretary of the Department of Telecommunications when the enormity of the 2G spectrum scam emerged in horrific detail.

The issue is not whether Thomas is an honest officer. He may well be an officer who has always acted in the best interests of the state. The issue is simply whether it is possible for the committee that selects the CVC to come up with a name that is acceptable to all three members. That, surely, is not a stupendously difficult task. So why persist doggedly with a person to whom one member has strong objections and ram that selection through the necessary rituals that are required? Did the other two members of the selection committee, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P. Chidambaram, want Thomas so desperately that they not only overrode the objections of the third member but persisted with his appointment even when the opposition to it became more widespread?

Consider, further, how inexplicable the official stand on Thomas continues to be when the Supreme Court has questioned his ability to probe the 2G spectrum scam and the CVC recused himself from the probe. He cannot, as a matter of fact, disassociate himself from the probe since the Central Vigilance Commission is looking into the whole business. And still the government continues to keep him as CVC, seemingly oblivious to the effect it is having on the image of the government, already stained by a variety of scams.

Far-fetched

Was the appointment more a political decision, and was it seen as such by Sushma Swaraj? Or was it yet another instance of the work of a group of powerful men around the Prime Minister who happen to be from a particular State? Both ideas seem rather far-fetched, grounded more in gossip than in fact. Whatever it is, the decision to select him out of all those considered suitable remains a surprising one, and one that has not brought the government any credit.

The issue is not of Thomas' personal integrity but one of public perception, and that becomes extremely important when appointments to posts such as these are made. It is axiomatic that if someone is appointed owing to strong political or ministerial support, that person considers himself or herself beholden to those who provided that support and to that extent is a little more pliant than someone who is selected because of a known unblemished record.

It may be wise to take a look at the manner in which the CVC is selected. Perhaps it would be prudent to include in the selection committee an eminent jurist, perhaps even the Chief Justice of India, if, of course, he or she agrees to be part of the selection process. Other alternatives could be thought of. A list of suitable persons could be sent to the Chief Justice of India, who could constitute a committee of judges to make a selection.

One realises that this is something that the judiciary may summarily reject as it may not want to have any hand in the selection of someone, however eminent, who is a part of the executive, whose decisions may be overruled by executive order.

But courts have been taking decisions on a number of matters of public importance, and the Supreme Court may well agree to take on the selection of the person charged with looking into instances of corruption and wrongdoing in the public sphere.

Corruption and dishonesty have spread so widely in the framework of public institutions that it may not be inappropriate for the highest court in the country to take on the selection of the one authority that can take some steps to inquire into dubious decisions and actions by public servants.

Simultaneously, it would be salutary if the CVC were given the power to take punitive action instead of just recommending such action to the appropriate authorities. This will obviously need to be carefully thought out. One does not want the CVC to become more than the concept behind the creation of that office. He is not a court of law, nor should he be. But between the courts and the realm of administrative action there is an area where the CVC can function as an effective deterrent to dishonest and corrupt officials.

The basic intention must inevitably be to distance the CVC from the political executive, both in his appointment and functioning. If that is generally agreed on, then the rest will be logical.