<–2/”>a >The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is a landmark institution. By the middle of the 1960s the Central Government felt that drastic action needs to be taken against pervasiveness of Corruption. The jurisdiction of the CVC spreads over the Union Government employees, employees of all public undertakings, numerous other corporate bodies. The jurisdiction of the CVC is spread over many other organisations who deal with the Central Government matters. The Delhi Municipal Corporation and New Delhi Municipal Committee come under the jurisdiction of CVC. The CVC can be compared with the Swedish institution of ombudsman.
From the report of the Santhanam Committee we get the following functions:
The chief function of the CVC is to free Society/”>Indian Society from the deep rooted evils of corruption. To that end if can start inquiry against any grievance raised by people or organisation. The grievance may be regarding the functions of Civil servant or any particular branch of Public Administration. The CVC thoroughly investigates various aspects of the grievance.
The CVC has been empowered to call for reports or information or facts from the concerned person or department. The person or organisation is legally bound to furnish information. If the CVC feels that there is sufficient truth in the complaint and it requires further investigation then the CVC may refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CVC investigates the sources of grievance and if there is any truth in the complaint the CVC submits its report to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Home Minister places the report before each house of parliament.
There is a man at the head of the CVC and he is known as Central Vigilance Commissioner. He is appointed by the President. The CVC has a separate secretariat to assist him in the discharge of his functions. The Central Vigilance Commission is not a statutory body because its advices or suggestions are not mandatory for the government which means that the government may or may not accept the suggestion.
There are three stages of the CVC:
First is, it receives complaints from individuals or corporate bodies or organisations.
In the Second stage the CVC investigates, and in the final stage it prepares a report. The CVC is, however, an independent and autonomous body. But it cannot be compared with the Swedish system of ombudsman. The latter is a very powerful person.
According to the CVC there are about thirty types of corruption or corrupt practices. In order to enlighten the readers some may be mentioned, embezzlement of public fund, to give or take favours to or from the contractors, irregularities in the discharge of government responsibility, to distribute favours to relative or other persons by violating government rules and procedures, to take or give bribes.
Moral turpitude is also treated by the commission as an offence and hence it is punishable. Mohit Bhattacharya in his assessment of the CVC says: “The Central Vigilance Commission is certainly no substitute for an ombudsman. As it is constituted, the commission is virtually an extension of the bureaucratic apparatus of the central government and its operations are very much hedged in the overpowering ministers and the political forces”. The same opinion has been expressed by several other critics. Since like Election Commission it is not a constitutional authority, its findings and suggestions, in numerous cases, go unheeded. This is the most tragic aspect of the CVC.
We believe that in order to make the CVC an effective body it should be kept outside the tremendous influence of powerful bureaucrats, ministers and party leaders. In the real sense the CVC will have power to uproot all types and forms of corruption. Since its recommendations are nor mandatory the letharginess on the part of government may foil the good motive of the CVC. We feel the Central Government or the top echelon of Bureaucracy must be in all sincerity determined to uproot corruption from social and political life. But this type of mentality is almost absent.
Even after the constitution of Central Vigilance Commission, India tops the list of the corrupt countries of the world. The stark reality is that nobody takes corruption as a serious evil and some powerful persons (who have the power to stop corrupt practices) are showing lackadaisical Attitude towards this most serious matter. The inevitable consequence is that corruption is getting flabby day after day. We can say that the Central Vigilance Commission is a window dressing in our social and political system.
The functioning of the CVC ultimately proved that it was inadequate to deal with the proper redressal of grievances. Considering the pervasiveness of corruption the Central Government decided to take further and bolder steps to fight corruption. The government of India set up an Administrative Reforms Commission in 1966. The chief purpose is to take effective steps for the redressal of grievances of citizens. It was found that the CVC could not reach the goals or objectives for which it was created.
The Administrative Reforms Commission in its Interim Report said; “After having carefully evaluated the pros and cons…………………………… we are of the view that the special circumstances relating to our country can be fully met by providing for two special institutions for the redressal of citizens’ grievances. There should be one authority dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of ministers or secretaries to government at the centre and in states.
There should be another authority in each state and at the centre for dealing with the complaints against the administrative acts of the other officials” one institution is called Lokpal and the other is called the Lokayukta-2/”>Lokayukta. These two institutions, the ARC has suggested, must be independent of the executive organ of government. The ARC fully realised that a fully independent body with sufficient power and authority can meet the demands of people and can remove grievances against authority.
,
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is an Indian statutory body set up to inquire into allegations of corruption against public servants. It was established in 1964 by an Act of Parliament, the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 1964.
The CVC is headed by a Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) who is appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The CVC is assisted by two Vigilance Commissioners (VCs) who are also appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
The CVC has the power to inquire into allegations of corruption against public servants, including ministers, judges, and members of Parliament. It can also recommend disciplinary action against such public servants.
The CVC has been criticized for its lack of independence and its failure to take action against high-profile cases of corruption. However, it has also been praised for its work in investigating and prosecuting corruption cases.
The CVC has investigated a number of high-profile cases of corruption, including the 2G spectrum scam, the Adarsh Housing Society scam, and the Coalgate scam. It has also recommended disciplinary action against a number of public servants, including former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, former Justice-of-india/”>Chief Justice of India K.N. Singh, and former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram.
The CVC has been criticized for its lack of independence. It is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and its members are drawn from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). This has led to allegations that the CVC is not independent and that it is influenced by the government.
The CVC has also been criticized for its failure to take action against high-profile cases of corruption. For example, the CVC did not take any action against former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the Bofors scandal. This led to allegations that the CVC was protecting the government and that it was not impartial.
Despite these criticisms, the CVC has played an important role in fighting corruption in India. It has investigated a number of high-profile cases of corruption and has recommended disciplinary action against a number of public servants. The CVC has also been instrumental in bringing about a number of reforms to the government’s anti-corruption mechanisms.
In recent years, the CVC has come under increasing scrutiny. In 2011, The Supreme Court of India ruled that the CVC was not independent and that it was not effective in fighting corruption. The court ordered the government to take steps to make the CVC more independent and effective.
The government has responded to the Supreme Court’s order by proposing a number of reforms to the CVC. These reforms include making the CVC a statutory body, appointing the CVC on the recommendation of a selection committee, and giving the CVC more powers to investigate and prosecute corruption cases.
The CVC is an important institution in the fight against corruption in India. It has played a significant role in investigating and prosecuting corruption cases. However, the CVC has been criticized for its lack of independence and its failure to take action against high-profile cases of corruption. The government has proposed a number of reforms to the CVC in response to these criticisms. It remains to be seen whether these reforms will make the CVC more independent and effective in fighting corruption.
References:
- Central Vigilance Commission Act, 1964
- Supreme Court of India judgment in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
- Government of India’s proposal to reform the Central Vigilance Commission
What is the Central Vigilance Commission?
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is an independent statutory body set up in 1964 to inquire into allegations of corruption against public servants. It is headed by a Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and two Vigilance Commissioners (VCs).
What are the functions of the CVC?
The CVC’s functions include:
- To inquire into allegations of corruption against public servants;
- To recommend disciplinary action against public servants found guilty of corruption;
- To monitor the functioning of vigilance agencies;
- To advise the government on matters relating to corruption;
- To undertake studies and research on corruption;
- To create awareness about corruption and its prevention.
How can I file a complaint with the CVC?
You can file a complaint with the CVC in person, by post, or through the CVC’s website. The complaint should be in writing and should contain the following information:
- The name and address of the complainant;
- The name and designation of the public servant against whom the complaint is made;
- The allegations of corruption;
- The supporting evidence, if any.
What happens after I file a complaint with the CVC?
After you file a complaint, the CVC will investigate the matter. If the CVC finds that there is prima facie evidence of corruption, it will order an inquiry. The inquiry will be conducted by a CVC team or by a special investigating agency. If the inquiry finds that the public servant is guilty of corruption, the CVC will recommend disciplinary action against the public servant. The disciplinary action may include suspension, demotion, or dismissal from service.
What are the penalties for corruption?
The penalties for corruption vary depending on the severity of the offence. For minor offences, the penalty may be a fine or imprisonment for up to three years. For more serious offences, the penalty may be a fine or imprisonment for up to seven years. In some cases, the offender may also be disqualified from holding public office.
What can I do to prevent corruption?
There are a number of things you can do to prevent corruption, including:
- Being aware of the signs of corruption;
- Reporting corruption to the authorities;
- Participating in anti-corruption campaigns;
- Supporting anti-corruption laws and policies;
- Demanding Transparency and Accountability from public officials.
Sure, here are some MCQs on the topics of corruption, ethics, and whistleblowing:
Which of the following is NOT a type of corruption?
(A) Bribery
(B) Embezzlement
(C) Nepotism
(D) WhistleblowingWhich of the following is NOT an ethical principle?
(A) Honesty
(B) Integrity
(C) Fairness
(D) WhistleblowingWhich of the following is NOT a way to prevent corruption?
(A) Creating a culture of transparency and accountability
(B) Enforcing anti-corruption laws
(C) Providing training on ethical behavior
(D) WhistleblowingWhich of the following is NOT a way to deal with corruption?
(A) Reporting it to the authorities
(B) Confronting the person who is corrupt
(C) Trying to change the system
(D) WhistleblowingWhich of the following is NOT a benefit of whistleblowing?
(A) It can help to expose corruption
(B) It can help to hold people accountable
(C) It can help to improve the system
(D) It can get you firedWhich of the following is NOT a risk of whistleblowing?
(A) You could be retaliated against
(B) You could be ostracized
(C) You could be sued
(D) You could be imprisonedWhich of the following is NOT a reason why people might not whistleblow?
(A) They are afraid of being retaliated against
(B) They are afraid of being ostracized
(C) They are afraid of being sued
(D) They are afraid of being imprisonedWhich of the following is NOT a way to protect yourself if you are considering whistleblowing?
(A) Keep records of everything
(B) Talk to a lawyer
(C) Talk to a trusted friend or colleague
(D) Go publicWhich of the following is NOT a way to encourage whistleblowing?
(A) Create a culture of transparency and accountability
(B) Enact strong anti-corruption laws
(C) Provide training on ethical behavior
(D) Punish whistleblowersWhich of the following is NOT a way to reduce corruption?
(A) Create a culture of transparency and accountability
(B) Enact strong anti-corruption laws
(C) Provide training on ethical behavior
(D) Reward whistleblowers