APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CBI
The UPA II government has a penchant for creating unnecessary controversies regarding appointments to top posts in important institutions. Earlier, the government had to cut a very sorry figure in the Supreme Court when they appointed P. J. Thomas in the office of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, despite strong opposition by the leader of the opposition. More recently, they again insisted on having their man P.P. Rao as the fifth member on the selection panel of the anti-graft body Lokpal, forcing Sushma Swaraj to take up the matter with the President of India. There is no similarity between the two cases, as P P Rao is an eminent jurist, with a well earned reputation. However, because of an extremely poor record of this government in dealing with corruption, public tend to look upon government’s appointments to such crucial posts with a suspicious eye. They think the government generally tries to plant its own pliable officers in important posts.
Following on the heels of the decision to appoint P. P. Rao comes the controversy surrounding the appointment to the post of Additional Director, CBI. This time, the government is at loggerheads not with the leader of the opposition but with the Central Vigilance Commission. The Commission recommended an officer for appointment to this post; the government chose a different person.
Appointments to posts above the rank of Superintendent of Police in the CBI have to be governed by the provisions of law as laid down in the CVC Act of 2003, which amended relevant sections of the the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946. The Act sets up a Committee, with the Central Vigilance Commissioner as the head, Vigilance Commissioners and Secretary, MHA and Secretary (Coordination and Public Grievances) in the Cabinet Secretariat as members to recommend appointments to senior posts in the CBI. The person recommended by this Committee for appointment to the senior post in the CBI was not acceptable to the government. The PMO has defended the government’s decision on two grounds:
1. The Committee’s decisions are not binding on the government, as they are merely recommendatory in nature. The government was within its rights to reject the person recommended by the CVC. The government seems to be right in this regard as Section 4 C (2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 clearly authorises the government to “pass such orders as it thinks fit” on the recommendation made by the Committee. The matter, however, is not as simple as it appears. There are other points that are equally important. One, it is not the government but the CVC that exercises superintendence over anti corruption work of the CBI. The Additional Director in CBI deals mainly with that type of work. The Commission is therefore expected to have a better understanding of the requirements of the post and the person who would be more suitable for the assignment. Two, very senior representatives of the central government in the form of Secretary, MHA and a Secretary of the Cabinet Secretariat are members of the selection committee. They are also a party to the recommendation made by the selection committee headed by the CVC. It more or less amounts to saying that one part of the government is willing to suggest one person for the post while the other part of the government in the form of PMO is anxious to appoint some other person. Three, the legal provision that sets up a committee to select names for a senior post in the CBI is an important statutory step to cut down the government’s discretion in such cases. The government should not give an impression that it can circumvent such provisions by sticking to a highly legal interpretation of their powers.
2. The other ground on which the government has justified its selection is that of seniority. The person appointed by them is senior to the name recommended by the CVC. Seniority is an important but not a necessary condition to make such decisions. There are innumerable examples where seniority was given a go by when appointments to important posts were made by the government. To give only one example relating to police, the government appointed Y.S Dadwal a couple of years ago as Delhi Police Commissioner, disregarding his senior colleague Smt Kiran Bedi.
All types of interpretations are being discussed in the media about the rejection of CVC’s recommendation. When such views are aired in the public, it embitters not only personal relationships but also sends a wrong signal down the line in the police department. The police being a hierarchical organization, it is important that the image of the top leadership in the service is not impaired. When an impression, rightly or wrongly, gains ground that a particular appointment is due more to lobbying than to merit and the government does nothing to remove that idea, the rank and file as well as the public may not repose full confidence in the senior officers’ability to come up to their expectations.
Reluctance on the part of the government to explain their decision is due to the feeling that it is their prerogative to make appointments to the top posts. This may be true, but then simultaneously, it is the citizens’ right in a democratic set up to know why the government has taken a particular decision. Appointment to a senior post in CBI is as important for the public as it is for the government. If a senior officer, who has been selected by a high powered committee set up by law for such purpose, has been disregarded for the post, the aggrieved person as well as the public must know the reasons for rejection.
