The serious concern expressed by Many Members of Parliament in the Parliamentary debate in June, 1962 on the "Growing menace of corruption in administration" led to the formation of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption better known as Santhanam Committee to review the problem and make suggestion. Among other things, the Santhanam Committee noticed the conspicuous absence of a dynamic integration between- the Vigilance Units in various ministries and Administrative Vigilance Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Committee had also raised an important issue that the Administration could not be a judge of its own conduct. The Central Vigilance Commission was therefore, conceptualized as an apex body for exercising general superintendence and control over vigilance matters in administration under Govt. of India Resolution dated February 11,1964. The establishment of the Commission was considered essential for evolving and applying common standards in deciding cases involving lack of probity and integrity in Administration.

CVC is recognised to be the apex vigilance institution, free of control from any executive authority, monitoring all vigilance activity under the Central Government and advising various authorities in Central Government organizations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming their vigilance work.

Consequent upon promulgation of an ordinance by the President, the Central Vigilance Commission has been made a multi member Commission with "statutory status" with effect from 25th August, 1998. The Commission shall consist of-

1. Central Vigilance Commissioner - Chairperson;

2. not more than four Vigilance Commissioners - Members;

Consequent upon the directions given by the Supreme Court in the Writ Petition filed in Public Interest by Shri Vineet Narain and others in Hawala case, the Central Vigilance Commission has been given Statutory Status. In addition to the Powers conferred upon it, the Commission will exercise superintendence over the functioning of Delhi Special Police Establishment and review the progress of investigations being conducted by them in so far as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed that the CVC would review the progress of applications pending with the competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the PC Act 1988. These directives of the Supreme Court had lead to the promulgation of the C.V.C. Ordinance conferring Statutory Status on the CVC as Anti Corruption Body - on 25/8/1998, which was amended on 22/10/98.

The basic powers and functions of the Commission as defined in Chapter III (Section 8) of CVC Ordinance 1998, are as follows:

1. exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988;

Section 24 of the Ordinance also envisages that the Commission shall continue to discharge its existing functions as per the Resolution of Government of India of 1964, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission ordinance 1998. These functions broadly are as under:-

1. conduct oral inquiries through its officers, (Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries) in important disciplinary proceedings against the said public servants;

2. initiate at such intervals, as it considers suitable, a review of procedures and practices of Administration insofar as they relate to maintenance of integrity in administration;

3. scrutinise and approve proposals for appointment of Chief Vigilance Officers in various organisations and assess their work;

4. conduct, through its organisation of the Chief Technical Examiner, independent technical examination mainly from vigilance angle, of construction and other related works undertaken by various Central Government organisations; and

5. organise training courses for Chief Vigilance Officers and other vigilance functionaries in Central Government organisations.

6. inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made on a reference made by the Central Government wherein it is alleged that a public servant being an employee of the Central Government or a corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government company, society and any local authority owned or controlled by that Government, has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

7. inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-section (2) where in it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

8. review the progress of investigations conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988;

9. review the progress of applications pending with the competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988;

10. Tender advice to the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government on such matters as may be referred to it by that Government, said Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government or otherwise;

11. exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of the various Ministries of the Central Government or corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government.

The Commission has been given all the Powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while inquiring or causing an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint against a public servant while conducting inquiry or causing an enquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988;

1. summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;

2. requiring the discovery and production of any document;

3. receiving evidence on affidavits;

4. requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;

5. issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; and

6. any other matters which may be prescribed.

The Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and every proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code.

Though the advisory jurisdiction of the Commission extends to all organisations to which the executive control of the Union extends, however, for practical reasons, the Commission presently advises only on vigilance cases pertaining to the following categories of employees:-

1. Gazetted Central Government officials;

2. Board level appointees in the public sector undertakings of the Central Government;

3. Officers of the rank of Scale- III and above in the public sector banks;

4. Officers of the rank of Assistant Manager and above in the Insurance Sector (covered by LIC and GIC); and

5. Officers in autonomous bodies/local authorities or societies comparable in status to that of the Gazetted Central Government officials. Nonetheless, the Commission retains its residuary Powers to call for any individual case in respect of employees other than those who are within its normal jurisdiction

In addition, wherever considered necessary, the Commission is within its powers to call for individual cases of any Government servant other than those who are within its normally exercised jurisdiction and tender its advice. Also, in respect of cases of employees who are not within the normal jurisdiction of the Commission and there is a disagreement between the CBI and the concerned administrative authorities as regards the future course of action to be taken in such cases, the difference of opinion shall be resolved by the Commission.

An area of concern is that of the vigilance management in PSUs. The Commission attaches considerable importance to the PSUs in view of the size of investments, made by the Government of India in this Sector. Till 1986, the Commission had jurisdiction over officials of PSUs whose basic pay was not less than Rs.1,800 per month. The Government reconsidered the position and decided that only cases of Board-level appointees of Public Sector Enterprises need be referred to CVC. As a result, the normal jurisdiction of the Commission over PSUs has curtailed. This has certainly had a bearing on effectiveness of overall anti-corruption work in PSUs. The Department of Public Enterprises were of the view that PSUs needed to be treated on a different footing from that of government departments since autonomy was one of their distinguishing features. Recently, an orchestrated campaign has begun in various newspapers and suggests that agencies like CBI and CVC come in the way and hinder the potential of the PSUs to perform and operate in the commercially competitive environment. The feeling which prevails is that vigilance has been stifling executive initiatives and restricts their freedom in performing their legitimate duties. But the facts are otherwise. The Commission, in the post-1986 scenario has been advising only in cases involving Board level officials. Their number is very restricted. An analysis of the data available for 1993-95 highlights that contrary to the claim made in certain Quarters Out of the total number of 240 odd PSUs, the conduct of top level executives came to scrutiny from vigilance point of view only in about 20 cases. Mainly, sick undertakings account for a major number of these cases.

Surprisingly, PSUs with huge investments and programmes as in the case of the Ministries of Coal, Petroleum, Commerce and Civil Aviation, and the Department of Fertilizers, Steel, Mines and Chemical and Petrochemicals do not figure in this list. The general apprehension that there are all-pervasive vigilance inquiries is not borne out by the facts. The Commission has therefore, suggested to the Government to restore the pre-1986 jurisdiction over PSUs. Incidentally, the Department of Administrative Reforms have constituted a committee on working of PSUs, which also recommended the same. The proposal is under consideration of the Department of Public Enterprises.

The Commission has been accorded Statutory status by the Government by the promulgation of an Ordinance under Gazette of India Notification No.44 of 25.08.1998 amended vide Notification No.47 of 22/10/98. The Commission has now been made a multi-member body consisting of Central Vigilance Commissioner (Chairman) and not more than four Vigilance Commissioners as its members. Earlier the Commission was a one Member Commission headed by Central Vigilance Commissioner. The appointment of CVC as well as that of the VCs is required to be made by the President by warrant under his hand and seal on the recommendations of a committee consisting of (a) The Prime Minister, (b) The Minister of Home Affairs and (c) Leader of the Opposition in the House of people. Presently the Commission is headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner, Shri N. Vittal who assumed charge with effect from 3rd September, 1998.

The Central Vigilance Commissioner is assisted by a Secretary who is of the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, two Additional Secretaries of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and other staff which include 10 Officers of the rank of Director/ Deputy Secretaries, an OSD and four Under Secretaries.

In addition, there are thirteen Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDI) who are nominated to conduct Oral Inquiries relating to major penalty proceedings on behalf of the disciplinary authorities in serious and important disciplinary cases.

There is also a Technical Wing attached to the Commission with two Chief Technical Examiners of the rank of Chief Engineer who are assisted by Eight Technical Examiners of the rank of Executive Engineer, Six Assistant Technical Examiner of the rank of Assistant Engineer and other subordinate staff. The function of this wing is tendering of advice/assistance to the Commission and Chief Vigilance Officers in vigilance cases involving technical matters.

The Division in the Directorate of Personnel & Administrative Reforms set up in 1955 attended to formulation and implementation of policies of the Central Government in the field of Vigilance, anti-corruption, and lack of integrity in Public Services. However after the CVC was made a statutory body, the functions of the Division have become redundant and ceased. The Directorate of Personnel & Administrative Reforms is now renamed as the Directorate of Personnel & Public Grievances.