With a bid to make appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner more transparent and efficient, the Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Centre on a PIl that demanded that selection of CVC and two other Commissioners should be “unanimous” and based on criteria that lays down eligibility and experience required in a person to be selected as the anti-corruption ombudsman.
A bench headed by Chief Justice RM lodha gave six weeks to the Centre for filing response to the PIl filed by a Delhi-based NGO Centre for Integrity, Governance and Training in Vigilance. Appearing for the NGO, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani argued that the Central Vigilance Commission Act does not spell out minimum knowledge and experience required by CVC. This was in contrast to the criteria laid down for appointment of lokpal.
“In contrast to the provisions of the lokpal and lokayuktas Act, 2013 with that of the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, it will be seen that no mechanism has been provided for selecting a CVC and two VCs. No advertisement is issued calling for the applications,” the petition represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan said.
Further, Jethmalani submitted that the High Powered Committee comprising Prime Minister, Home Minister and leader of Opposition which selects CVC should take decision “unanimously” rather than by majority. “It is not known how empanelling is done for making appointment of CVC and two VCs. The entire process of making selection and appointment is not transparent,” the petition said.