User:CoffeeKing/sandbox

1964: The CVC established as India's peak anticorruption authority
Corruption in government has been a concern in India since before Independence. To address corruption, many countries have established a statutory authority, independent of the executive arm of government, to receive and act on complaints of abuse of government power. The powers of such an authority can extend to four areas:


 * advisory. The power to receive complaints and make recommendations and reports
 * investigatory. The power to compel the production of evidence and to obtain evidence through wiretaps, etc.
 * prosecutorial. The power to bring cases to court and prosecute alleged wrongdoers
 * punitive. The power to impose punishments on those found guilty of wrongdoing.

Within these areas, powers can be broad or constrained. An anticorruption authority is as weak or strong as the powers it is given.

In February, 1964 on the advice of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption headed by Shri K. Santhanam, Parliament established the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as India's peak anticorruption authority to advise and guide Central Government.[2] From the beginning, however, the CVC was a weak anticorruption authority.


 * The Santhanam Committee had envisioned an authority with not only advisory, but also investigatory, powers, embodied in an investigatory department for corruption charges and for hearing allegations and complaints about the government. This did not occur; rather this power remained with the premiere investigatory body in India, the CBI, which was both separate from the CVC and under the control of the Central Government.


 * Furthermore, the Committee wanted wanted the CVC to be the final authority for according prosecution sanctions in respect of Government officials. Again, this recommendation was ignored.

1966-2012: Attempts to strengthen India's anticorruption authority
Almost as soon as the CVC was constituted, there was a concern in Parliament about its weakness, which has been reflected in periodic attempts to strengthen the Indian authorities responsible for anticorruption:
 * From an administrative perspective, through strengthening the CVC and also through its formal supervision of the anticorruption branch of the CBI has stronger investigatory power.
 * From a legislative perspective, replacing the CVC with a much stronger anticorruption authority, called the "Lokpal."

[Discussion of the CVC's investigative charter]

[Discussion of the Lokpal bills]

through "Lokpal" Bills

Fhiefly by investing the CVC with some investigatory power, and by replacing the CVC with a stronger anticorruption body called the Lokpal.

This weakness has been criticized by opposition groups such as the BJP and Team Anna, and every year since 19xx they have introduced a bill in Parliament advocating a much stronger ombudsman: the Jan Lokpal Bill, or Citizen's Ombudsman's Bill.

[Description of the CVCs powers, and characterization of it as a weaker-style ombudsman]The CVC is not an investigating agency, and works through either the CBI or through the Departmental Chief Vigilance Officers.[3]

[Description of the process of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing corruption]

[How well is the ombudsman seen to have done? Link the debate over the 2011 anticorruption drive, Jan Lokpal bill to the range of the ombudsman's possible powers]

The only investigation carried out by the CVC is that of examining Civil Works of the Government which is done through the Chief Technical Officer.[4]

Corruption investigations against government officials can proceed only after the government permits them. The CVC publishes a list of cases where permissions are pending, some of which may be more than a year old[5]

The CVC has also been publishing a list of corrupt government officials against which it has recommended punitive action.[6]

On 31 May 2012, based on a complaint of two Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament Prakash Javadekar and Hansraj Ahir directed a CBI enquiry.

There were leaks of the report in media in March 2012 which claimed the figure to be around inr 10600000000000.

It is called by the media as the Mother of all Scams. Discussion about the issue was placed in the Parliament on 26th Aug, 2012 by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with wide protests from the opposition.

According to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, this is a leak of the initial draft and the details being brought out were observations which are under discussion at a very preliminary stage. On 29 May 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh offered to give up his public life if found guilty in this scam.

September 2012. Coalgate inquiries and investigations multiply
Following the tabling of the CAG Final Report in Parliament, additional investigations began. Some of these were routine while others were extraordinary, reflecting the importance that Coalgate had assumed:
 * The Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG), or Screening Committee, that was responsible for the initial allocations considered as part of its ordinary business whether some blocks should be de-allocated due to delays in development.
 * The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, the normal forum for consideration of CAG Reports, began to consider the report, with comments from the Coal Ministry due on 14 September.
 * In an extraordinary occurence, the Supreme Court of India heard a complaint from Advocate M L Sharma, and directed the Government to explain why it did not follow a policy of competitive bidding in coal allocations.

PAC Review
The normal forum for the discussion of the CAG Report would be Parliament's Committee on Public Accounts ("Public Accounts Committee or PAC").

"The Committee on Public Accounts is constituted by Parliament each year for examination of accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament for expenditure of Government of India, the annual Finance Accounts of Government of India, and such other Accounts laid before Parliament as the Committee may deem fit such as accounts of autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies (except those of Public Undertakings and Government Companies which come under the purview of the Committee on Public Undertakings)."

The Committee consists of not more than 22 members comprising:


 * 15 members elected by Lok Sabha
 * not more than 7 members of Rajya Sabha

Independence is ensured by:


 * Chairman is appointed by the Speaker from the opposition members of Lok Sabha.
 * A Minister is not eligible to be elected as a member of the Committee.

Functions of the Committee The Examination of the Appropriation Accounts relating to the Railways, Defence Services, P&T Department and other Civil Ministries of the Government of India and Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India thereon as also the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on Revenue Receipts mainly form the basis of the deliberation of the Committee. In scrutinising the Appropriation Accounts and the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, it is the duty of the Committee to satisfy itself: (a)	that the money shown in the accounts as having been disbursed were legally available for and, applicable tothe service or purpose to which they have been applied or charged; (b)	that the expenditure conforms to the authority which governs it; and (c)	that every re-appropriation has been made in accordance with the provisions made in this behalf under rules framed by competent authority.

One of the duties of the Committee is to ascertain that money granted by Parliament has been spent by Government within the scope of the demand. It considers the justification for spending more or less than the amount originally sanctioned. If any money has been spent on a service in excess of the amount granted by the House for the purpose, the Committee examines with reference to the facts of each case, the circumstances leading to such an excess and makes such recommendations as it may deem fit. The functions of the Committee extend however, “beyond, the formality of expenditure to its wisdom, faithfulness and economy”. The Committee thus examines cases involving losses, nugatory expenditure and financial irregularities. While scrutinising the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on Revenue Receipts, the Committee examines various aspects of Government’s tax administration. The Committee, thus examines cases involving under-assessments, tax-evasion, non-levy of duties, misclassifications etc., identifies the loopholes in the taxation laws and procedures and makes recommendations in order	to check leakage of revenue.

The representatives of the Ministries appear before the Committee when examining the Accounts and Audit Reports relating to their Ministries. The Committee proceeds by way of interrogation of witnesses. The Comptroller and Auditor General is the “friend, philosopher and guide” of the Committee. He attends the sittings of the Committee and assists it in its deliberations. The Committee may appoint one or more Sub-Committees/ Sub Groups to examine any particular matter. At the beginning of its term, the Committee appoints a few Working Groups/Sub Committees to facilitate the examination of the various Accounts and Audit Reports and Sub-Committee to consider the action taken by the Government on the recommendations made by the Committee in its earlier Reports. If it appears to the Committee that it is necessary for the purpose of its examination that an on- the-spot study should be made, the Committee may, either in its entirety or by dividing itself into Study Groups decide to undertake tours to make an on-the-spot study of any project or establishment. All discussions held during tour by the Committee/Study Groups, with the representatives of the establishment, Ministries/Departments, non-official organisations, Labour Unions etc. are treated as confidential and no one having access to the discussion, directly or indirectly is to communicate to the Press or any unauthorised person, any information about matters taken up during the discussions.

Government take action on the recommendations of the Committee and submit action taken notes to the Committee.

The Committee then present an Action Taken Report after considering the views of the Government. The Government further submit an “Action Taken Statement” on the action taken by the Government on the “Action Taken Report” of the Committee. The Action Taken Statement is generally laid before the House without any further examination by the Committee. Normally, almost all the recommendations of the Committee are implemented by the Government.

SCI Review
Advocate M L Sharma filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking to cancel the allotment of 194 coal blocks on grounds of arbitrariness, illegality, unconstitutionality and public interest. Defending the CAG, a Supreme Court bench of Justices R M Lodha and A R Dave dismissed the Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman’s objections that petition relies heavily on the CAG report by saying, the CAG is a "constitutional authority" and that its report is "not a piece of trash".

Moreover, the court ordered the government to inform it of reasons for not following the 2004 policy of "competitive bidding" for coal block allocation. The apex court wanted to know not only the steps that have been taken but also proposed against companies that have have breached the agreement.