news details |
|
|
| Will Khoda takeup the matter with Govt? | | J&K SVC Act a toothless tiger | |
Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 16: To address the menace of corruption the Govt recently established State Vigilance Commission and Kuldeep Khoda former DGP has been appointed the first Chief Vigilance Commissioner and RK Jeerath will be one the Commissioners of this Commission. The State Vigilance Commission (SVC) will supervise the existing State Vigilance Organisation (SVO), which follows the pattern and legislation of the Central Vigilance Commission's supervision of the CBI. The J&K SVC Bill was passed by the Legislature more than two years back without much debate or input from civil society. It was not implemented for many months and was therefore widely assumed to be in a state of suspended animation. In January 2011 the Government notified the Act and signaled its intention to appoint the Vigilance Commissioners. After RTI and civil society members identified several lacunae in the Act the Chief Minister wrote back to invite a formal analysis. After studying the State Vigilance Commission Act the civil society actors had concluded that the SVC is doomed to become another "toothless" anti-corruption agency because it lacks the necessary autonomy and authority to investigate and punish corruption.
The major flaws in J&K SVC Act are:
1. There are obvious alterations that have been made to template Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003 with the intention of downgrading the SVC's autonomy and making it subordinate to the Government. For example, at the Centre, selections to the CVC are made by a high-powered panel comprising the PM and the Leader of the Opposition and the final appointments are made by the President.
Under the J&K law, selections are instead made by the State Cabinet and appointments are made by the Government (rather than the Governor). At the National level , only the President has the authority to suspend and unilaterally remove Vigilance Commissioners. Under the J&K law, that authority has been granted to the Government (rather than the Governor). At the Centre, the (Chief) Central Vigilance Commissioner's rank and salary is the same as the Chief Election Commissioner of India or a Supreme Court Justice, and is therefore senior to any Government official. Under the J&K law, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner's rank and salary has been downgraded to the level of the Chairman of the Public Services Commission , who is at par with the Chief Secretary. In contrast, the J&K Right to Information Act of 2009 grants much greater autonomy to the State Information Commission in all of these respects. It is clear that the CVC Act was deliberately downgraded so that the SVC would be subordinate to the Government rather than being answerable only to the Governor.
2. The State Vigilance Commission ( SVC), like the CVC, is only an advisory body with few autonomous powers. Former Central Chief Vigilance Commissioner Nagarajan Vittal, was himself the first statutory Central Vigilance Commissioner of India (from 1998 until 2002) and can attest to the futility of the current CVC structure, which permits noisemaking but does not permit concrete action. In particular, the powers enumerated under Section 8 of the J&K SVC Act grant the Commission the authority to (1) give general "directions" to the Vigilance Organization, (2) initiate inquiries, (3) "review the progress" on ongoing investigations and (4) "tender advice." However, there is no mechanism for the State Vigilance Commission (SVC) to ensure that any of its orders are observed or that its recommendations are taken seriously. In fact, the SVC relies on the goodwill and cooperation of other departments and agencies. Its orders and recommendations are voluntary, and the Commission is accordingly a paper tiger. In contrast, the J&K RTI Act of 2009 and its Rules grant the State Information Commission the power to levy fines and make references to the courts for non-compliance. Why, then, is the SVC comparatively toothless? Similarly, the SVC lacks the authority to initiate disciplinary action on its own cognizance for cases that do not merit a full criminal trial. Under this system, the SVC merely supervises the work of the SVO's investigative officers, who may pursue only 2 possible outcomes when corruption is found: (1) the case is prosecuted in the courts under criminal law (the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1946), or (2) the case is forwarded to the concerned Departmental head for disciplinary action under the J&K Civil Servant (Classification and Control) Rules of 1956. In the first scenario, a very high standard of evidence is required, and proceedings, appeals, counter-appeals, counter-counter-appeals delay matter over many years. In the second scenario, the support and initiative of the concerned Head-of-Department is required. Under the Civil Service Rules, the departmental Head is (a) free to select a panel of his or her own choosing, which, in turn, (b) is free to take its own sweet time to formulate its own recommendations for disciplinary action, which, in turn, (c) the Department Head is then free to accept or reject. It does not require an anti-corruption expert to appreciate that disciplinary action is almost never imposed in J&K! Sandwiched between (1) backlogged corruption courts and (2) feckless departmental heads the SVO has devolved into an entirely ineffective organisation that almost never punishes the corrupt, despite the good intentions of the current Vigilance Commissioner and his colleagues.
The State Vigilance Commission Act (VC Act) has no provisions for protecting the whistle blowers, who are a crucial source of information for the SVO and who are frequently threatened, harassed, and targeted in retaliation for their honesty as the current and former Vigilance Commissioners can attest. The SVC Act does not include clear provisions to ensure that the SVC and SVO are adequately staffed and resourced. The SVC Act does not include provisions to ensure investigations are completed in a time-bound manner.
It is urged upon the Government to make the necessary amendments in the existing law otherwise it will be just a futile exercise of having such a Commission which has been created in the State but has no powers. We hope that Kuldeep Khoda will take up this matter with the Chief Minister as early as possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
