11 years on CVC puzzled on oversight of regulatory bodies

The Central Vigilance Commission and the government have been arguing for over a decade on oversight of regulatory authorities.

The CVC has since 2004 been seeking from its controlling ministry, the department of personnel and training (DoPT), a list of regulatory bodies under its jurisdiction.

On March 20, 2014, the CVC asked the DoPT to issue guidelines on the vigilance administration of regulatory authorities like the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

Employees of regulatory authorities are public servants and, according to the CVC, the powers conferred on it extends to them.

“It is noted that every Act under which such regulatory authorities have been established stipulates the procedure for taking action against the chairman or members of such regulators. The staff working in such regulators are public servants and as such come within the purview of the commission,” the CVC said in a letter to the DoPT in May 2005.

But the CVC role has been limited in the absence of suitable guidelines from the DoPT.

Sources in the CVC said a formal list from the parent ministry was necessary as many institutions such as the SEBI had not appointed their anti-graft officials as per the CVC manual.

According to the CVC website, the commission has vigilance powers over central government officials, executives in public sector undertakings, banks and insurance companies, and staff of the Reserve Bank of India, NABARD and SIDBI. Quasi-judicial bodies like TRAI and Sebi do not figure in the list. While it appoints chief vigilance officers in 100 profit making institutions of the government, for other institutions it follows a middle-route which leaves space for discretion with the institutions.

Sources said while the Reserve Bank of India had appointed a CVO as asked by the CVC other regulatory bodies had not done so and clear orders from the DoPT would have expedited this.

But, the DoPT has repeatedly said in its correspondence it is unclear what the CVC’s grievance is regarding its vigilance of regulatory bodies.

A public interest litigation and a writ petition were filed last October in the Bombay High Court against lack of vigilance over the Chief Vigilance Officers (CVOs) in regulatory bodies. The cases pertained to the then Sebi vigilance officer, who was also heading its investigative department. Sebi replaced the CVO later with another executive director who also heads the surveillance department.

Complaints against officials of regulatory bodies reach the CVC, but it cannot act on them due to the lack of appropriate rules. During the cases over its CVO, Sebi had written to the CVC for guidelines on appointment of part- and full-time CVOs, But the CVC could offer little clarity.