'Ordinance deviates from Supreme Court directives'

Interview with Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy.

The Ordinance on the Central Vigilance Commission is seen to have departed from the draft submitted by the Law Commission to the Government. In an interview he gave V. Venkatesan, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Chairman of the Law Commission, clarifies the Law Commission's view:

Do you think the Ordinance deviates from the Supreme Court order on substantive issues?

The Ordinance deviates from the Supreme Court directives in three main respects. First, it has introduced the Secretary, Personnel, into the CVC as an ex-officio member. Secondly, the introduction of the "single-point directive" is no doubt a modification. Thirdly, the Ordinance restricts the supervisory power of the CVC over the Central Bureau of Investigation to cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Why did the Law Commission's draft CVC Ordinance submitted to the Government propose a multi-member CVC?

In my view, the Supreme Court did not speak of either a single-member CVC or a multi-member CVC. The Law Commission is of the view that if the CVC is a multi-member body, members can be drawn from different specialised fields, including finance, law, administration and vigilance. This would strengthen the CVC. We felt that since the CVC is clothed with enormous powers, it may not be advisable to confer all those powers on a single individual. A multi-member CVC is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court directive; it is an improvement.

Do you endorse the inclusion of the Secretary, Department of Personnel, as an ex-officio member of the Commission?

The question of my endorsing the inclusion does not arise. It is contradictory to the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court judgment.

Do you think that the CVC should have superintendence over all the cases investigated by the CBI, and not just cases under the PCA?

Indeed, the Supreme Court decision speaks of the CVC supervising all the cases investigated by the CBI. The Supreme Court contemplates the CVC calling upon the CBI to inquire into such other cases as the CVC may direct.

In your view, is it proper to limit the choice of the CVCr to bureaucrats?

P.V. SIVAKUMAR

The Supreme Court's decision clearly suggests that persons with administrative experience and impeccable integrity should be considered from among civil servants and others. That is the right thing to say, in my opinion.

What is your reaction to the backdoor entry of the single-point directive in the CVC Ordinance?

It appears to be contrary to the spirit of the judgment.

The words "and others" are conspicuous by their absence in the Ordinance after it stipulates that the CVC should consist of persons from the civil services. These words were apparently there in your draft ordinance submitted to the Government.

The draft made by me and approved by the other Commission members, Justice Leela Seth and Dr. N.M. Ghatate, contained the words "and others" after the words "civil servants". I presume that the final draft sent to the Government also contained the words. After the Ordinance was issued, it was brought to my notice that those words were not there. I checked the original draft and issued a corrigendum.

Do you think the Law Commission's draft Ordinance should have been accepted by the Government in toto?

When the Law Commission recommends something, the Government has to examine it thoroughly, as it is a high-power body. The Government should give it all the care and attention it deserves.

Did the Government fail to do so in this case?

It is for you to draw the inference.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar