The Legislation Under Which the Commission Is Established

In one line

The Commission existed for thirty-five years without a statute, and it has one because the Supreme Court directed in the hawala case that it be given one.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the Commission was created by an executive resolution in 1964 on the recommendation of the Santhanam Committee; in Vineet Narain v. Union of India the Supreme Court directed that it be given statutory status and supervision over the Central Bureau of Investigation, with a minimum tenure for the Director and a selection process; the directions were implemented by the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance 1999 and then by the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003.

The three stages

Stage one: 1964, an executive resolution. The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption recommended a Central Vigilance Commission and the Government created one by resolution. It had no statute, so its powers rested on the executive's own instructions and could have been withdrawn the same way.

Stage two: 1997, the Supreme Court.

Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889, (1998) 1 SCC 226, decided on 18 December 1997.

Facts. Petitions arising out of the Jain hawala diaries alleged that the Central Bureau of Investigation had failed to investigate senior public figures because of political interference.

Held. The Court issued directions to insulate the investigating agencies: statutory status for the Central Vigilance Commission, its supervision over the Central Bureau of Investigation, a fixed minimum tenure for the Director, and a selection process. The directions were to hold the field until Parliament legislated.

Why it matters. It is the case behind the Act, and it is the best illustration in this module of the courts acting on administrative accountability rather than on an individual grievance. It also created the doctrine of continuing mandamus, under which the Court retains the matter and monitors compliance, which is dealt with in the chapter on the judicial response.

Stage three: the statute. The Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance 1999 gave effect to the directions, and the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003 replaced it. Section 3 of the 2003 Act expressly deems the Commission constituted under the 1999 Ordinance, and continued under the Government resolution of 4 April 1999 as amended in 2002, to be the Commission constituted under the Act, so the institutional continuity from 1964 is preserved.

What the Act did beyond constituting the Commission

Section 24 deals with the existing Vigilance Commission, transferring its work and its pending matters.

Section 25 provides for the appointment of officers of the Directorate of Enforcement, with a Committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner recommending the appointment of the Director, and a minimum tenure. This is the same insulation applied to a second agency.