Nearly 4 months gone, Govt yet to frame rules

Sanjeev Pargal
JAMMU, June 10: Even after nearly four months of the constitution of State Vigilance Commission (SVC), the Government is yet to frame the rules on the working of the Commission, its powers, relationship with State Vigilance Organisation (SVO), the administration and other agencies. The rules had to be framed on the basis of an act of the Legislature on which the SVC had come into force.
Official sources confirmed to the Excelsior that though the SVC was formally constituted on February 22, 2013 with the appointment of former Director General of Police (DGP) Kuldeep Khoda as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and RK Jerath, a retired IAS officer as Vigilance Commissioner, the Government hasn’t yet framed the rules on the working of the Commission.
Worthwhile to mention here that an Act to set up the State Vigilance Commission with one CVC and two VCs in addition to other staff members was passed by the State Legislature in its Monsoon session of October 2010. It had received the Governor’s assent on January 19, 2011.
Though the Government would have framed the rules on the basis of the Act itself, sources said generally this is done after the constitution of the Commission and in consultations with the Commission members especially the CVC.
“Even if the Government had been waiting for setting up of the Commission to frame the rules by taking the CVC and the VC into confidence, it could have been done a long back as the Commission formally started functioning on February 22 this year i.e. more than three and a half months from now,’’ sources said, adding that even after four months of the Commission, the Government was yet to come out with the rules to make the anti-graft body fully functional.
The Act approved by the Legislature also mentioned that the Government would frame rules for the functioning of the Commission in consultation with the SVC members and placed them before each House of the Legislature.
“Though the Government had an excuse that it didn’t frame the rules after the Act for constitution of the SVC was assented to by the Governor on January 19, 2011 as it had to consult the Commission, it could have framed the rules within a fortnight after the Commission started functioning on February 22, 2013,’’ sources said.
They added that in the absence of framing of the rule, both the SVC and the SVO had been affected to some extent though they claimed that their working was going on smoothly.
Sources said the rules had to clear the entire functioning of the SVC and the SVO including the relationship between the two, the powers of the Commission including the CVC and VCs and Director Vigilance, the investigations on the complaints received by both and other matters pertaining to corruption.
Sources wondered that if the Government couldn’t frame the rules even nearly three years of passing of the Act and about four months of the functioning of the SVC how it could boast of fighting the corruption?
It may be mentioned here that the Government was yet to complete the SVC, which was without one member right from the beginning. Under the Act, the SVC would have a CVC and two VCs. However, the Government had appointed Mr Khuda as the CVC and Mr Jerath as the VC. Second VC proposed by the Government, MS Khan, also a retired IAS officer, had refused to take up the assignment. The post of the second VC remained vacant since then.
The SVC had to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Vigilance Organisation in so far as it relates to the investigations of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act or an offence with which a public servant specific in the Act may under the Code of Criminal Procedure be charged at the same trial.
The SVC would give directions to the Vigilance Organisation for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under the Prevention of Corruption Act 2001.
It was also provided in the Act that while exercising the powers of superintendence or giving directions to the Vigilance Organisation, the Commission should not exercise powers in such a manner so as to require the Vigilance Organisation to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner.

Follow our WhatsApp channel