A government memo for appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), to replace incumbent Pradeep Kumar whose term ends on September 28, turned controversial on Monday over the issue of the Leader of Opposition; or the absence of that position in the current Lok Sabha.
Besides Kumar, Vigilance Commissioner JM Garg's tenure also ends in September. In fact, a change in word --'so' instead of 'no' has changed the essence of the memo. While these appointments have to be vetted by a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of Opposition, an explanation in the guidelines annexed with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) letter to all the secretaries seeking names of suitable candidates resulted in various interpretations. One such interpretation was that the Narendra Modi government may appoint CVC and VC without consulting the Opposition.
However, constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap explained that the CVC law had always envisaged a situation when there may be no leader of Opposition. In such circumstances, the leader of the largest party in the Opposition would be consulted along with the PM and the Home Minister, he said. In this case, it is Congress. Mallikarjun Kharge is the leader of Congress in the 16th Lok Sabha.
What sparked the controversy was this explanation on the sub-section on Leader of Opposition being the third member whose recommendation would be mandatory for the appointment by the President of India. It says: "the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People" shall when so such leader has been so recognized, include the leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the House of the People.
The government gazette on the CVC Act words the explanation on the leader of Opposition a little differently. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People shall, when no such Leader has been so recognised, include the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the House of the People.
Recently, appointment of CVC had turned messy during the UPA rule. Bharatiya Janata Party had accused the UPA government of lying before the Supreme Court that the PM-led panel was not aware of the charges against PJ Thomas when it selected him as CVC.
The then leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj, who was a member of the selection committee, had said that she had brought the case against Thomas to the notice of the PM and the Home Minister, but they proceeded with the appointment. Subsequently, Thomas resigned as the apex court quashed his appointment as CVC.
