New Delhi: A number of prominent citizens have, in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, expressed their “concern” regarding non-appointment of the Chairperson and the Vigilance Commissioner of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) despite these vacancies persisting for several months.In the letter, former judges, senior lawyers, former senior public servants and social activists have pointed out to the Prime Minister that apart from being the apex vigilance institution in the country, the CVC is vested with the power to inquire or cause inquiries into allegations of corruption against certain categories of public servants, including complaints referred to it by the Lokpal. Furthermore, they said the CVC is also the designated authority to receive complaints from whistleblowers through the Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution, 2004.Referring to the delay in the appointments, the letter stated that under the CVC Act, the commission is composed of a Central Vigilance Commissioner, who is also the Chairperson, and up to two Vigilance Commissioners.‘Commissioner functioning as CVC despite there being no such provision’It said since the retirement of a Vigilance Commissioner in October 2020, the CVC was only functioning with the Chairperson and one Commissioner. “The Chairperson demitted office in June 2021 and the institution has been functioning with only one Commissioner since then, who has been made the acting Chairperson, though no provision exists under the law for such an arrangement,” the letter charged.The signatories to the letter – former Delhi high court chief justice A.P. Shah; former Patna high court judge Anjana Prakash; senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, social activist and founder of Mazdoor Shakti Sangathan Aruna Roy; former IPS officer Meeran Borwankar, former IAS officer Sundar Burra, former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, and social activists and founder of Satark Nagrik Sangathan, Anjali Bhardwaj – also reminded Modi that even in the years 2019 and 2020, for nearly 12 months, the commission was without a Chief.‘Ad hoc appointment defeats purpose of setting up oversight institution’They said thereafter an ad hoc arrangement of appointing an acting Chief was resorted to. This, however, the signatories contended defeated the very purpose “The purpose of setting up autonomous oversight bodies like the CVC is defeated if appointments are not made in a timely manner. The government has effectively paralysed the Central Vigilance Commission by leaving posts of Commissioners vacant.”Further, the concerned citizens also demanded that it was “imperative that appointments be made in a transparent manner to maintain the integrity of the decision-making process.Also read: Govt Employees Taking Up Private Jobs After Retirement Is a Serious Misconduct: CVCIn this regard, they said, a circular dated May 4, 2021 – inviting applications for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner – is available on the website of the Department of Personnel and Training but no other details about the progress on the appointment have been made available.The letter also reminded the PM that “the Supreme Court, in multiple judgments, has given specific directions to ensure transparency in the process of short-listing, selection and appointment of functionaries of various independent bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission and Information Commissions to prevent the appointment process being undermined”.‘SC provided guidelines on appointment of CVC’The letter also provided the PM the details of what the Supreme Court had stated in the matter of appointment of the CVC while hearing the writ petition in “Centre for PIL and Anr. Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Anr.”.It said the apex court had issued seven broad directions.Dealing with issue of unanimity or consensus in the appointment, the apex court had stated: “In our judgment we have held that there is no prescription of unanimity or consensus under Section 4(2) of the 2003 Act. However, the question still remains as to what should be done in cases of difference of opinion amongst the Members of the High Powered Committee.”It had dealt with the issue of dissent, by saying, that the majority will have to provide the reason for overruling dissent. “As in the present case, if one Member of the Committee dissents that Member should give reasons for the dissent and if the majority disagrees with the dissent, the majority shall give reasons for overruling the dissent. This will bring about fairness-in-action. Since we have held that legality of the choice or selection is open to judicial review we are of the view that if the above methodology is followed transparency would emerge which would also maintain the integrity of the decision-making process.”‘Post not to be restricted to civil servants’The apex court had also stated that people from varied fields would be considered for the post of CVC. “In future, the zone of consideration should be in terms of Section 3(3) of the 2003 Act. It shall not be restricted to civil servants”, it had laid down, and added that “all the civil servants and other persons empanelled shall be outstanding civil servants or persons of impeccable integrity.”The Supreme Court had also directed transparency in the process and stated that “the empanelment shall be carried out on the basis of rational criteria, which is to be reflected by recording of reasons and/or noting akin to reasons by the empanelling authority”. It had also provided that “the empanelment shall be carried out by a person not below the rank of Secretary to the Government of India in the concerned Ministry”.It had also advised putting all information before Selection Committee “in larger public interest”. The court had directed that “the empanelling authority, while forwarding the names of the empanelled officers/persons, shall enclose complete information, material and data of the concerned officer/person, whether favourable or adverse. Nothing relevant or material should be withheld from the Selection Committee. It will not only be useful but would also serve larger public interest and enhance public confidence if the contemporaneous service record and acts of outstanding performance of the officer under consideration, even with adverse remarks is specifically brought to the notice of the Selection Committee.”Likewise, it had also called upon the Selection Committee to “adopt a fair and transparent process of consideration of the empanelled officers.”‘In CIC appointments too SC directed transparency of process, placing records on website’While bringing all these points to the notice of the Prime Minister, the letter by the concerned citizens also recorded how the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors had directed the government to place records related to the ongoing process of appointment of the Central Information Commissioners and the chief CIC on its website.In this case too, the letter said, the Court directed that the short-listing criteria adopted by the Search Committee should be made public.However, the concerned citizens lamented that “other than the circular of May 2021, inviting applications for the post of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, no further details are available in the public domain. Even the names of the members of the search committee and details of applications received pursuant to the circular are not disclosed.”Stating that “timely and transparent appointments are key to ensure the proper functioning of institutions” and that “transparency safeguards against arbitrariness in the appointment process and builds public trust,” they urged Modi, as the Chairperson of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 4 of the CVC Act, to ensure that vacancies in the CVC were filled in a transparent manner without any further delay.