The Santhanam Committee, appointed in 1962 to study the growing problem of corruption and to suggest remedial measures stated in its report of 1964 as below: “We heard from all sides that corruption has in recent years spread even to those levels of administration from which it was conspicuously absent in the past”.
It also reported: “There is a widespread impression that some ministers who have held office during the last 16 years have enriched themselves illegitimately, obtained good jobs for their sons and relations through nepotism, and have reaped other advantages inconsistent with any notion of purity in public life”.
To be able to tackle corruption among officials, the Committee stated that “absolute integrity on the part of ministers at the Centre and the states is an indispensable condition for establishment of a tradition of purity in public services”. It, thus, gave priority to prevent political corruption.
To tackle the problem of rising corruption among ministers, the Santhanam Committee recommended that specific allegations against any of them should be promptly investigated by “an agency whose findings would command respect”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Indecision on Creation of Lokpal
No action was, however, taken on the above said recommendation, as, obviously, the ruling political class did not like to be subjected to any independent probe by an outside body.
Even the later recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of 1966 to set up the institution of Lokpal to investigate alleged cases of political corruption against ministers at the Centre has yet to be implemented. Five times in the past (i.e., in 1968, 1971, 1977, 1979 and 1985) some kind of Lokpal Bill were introduced in Parliament but these were cleverly allowed to lapse. The sixth and the latest Lokpal Bill of 1996 is still pending in Parliament.
The new bill provides for a very weak and inactive Lokpal who may turn out to be a protector of the corruption-charged politicians instead of punishing them. In the proposed law, this Lokpal watch-dog has been made incapable of ‘barking’ against corruption or ‘biting’ the corrupt.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Diluted Version of Central Vigilance Commission
To deal with high level administrative corruption, the Santhanam Committee had recommended setting up of an independent Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), keeping ministers out of its purview, but brings all public servants of the Central Government and its PSUs within its jurisdiction.
The Commission was to be given a statutory basis by a suitable parliamentary law “after suitable period of experiment”. Under CVC recommended by the Committee, the Commission was to be vested with powers to investigate complaints “that a public servant: (i) has exercised his powers for improper or corrupt purposes; or (ii) has unjustifiably or corruptly refrained from exercising his powers”.
For discharging this function effectively, the Commission was to be legally empowered “to initiate, conduct and complete such action as may be considered appropriate, including prosecution against a public servant found guilty” after preliminary investigation of the complaints by the Commission.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Powers to decide to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution was to be vested in the Commission itself by withdrawing these powers presently vested in government. In addition, it was recommended that the CVC should, by suitable legislation, be given powers that could be exercised by a Commission of Inquiry appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 so that he may undertake “any inquiry relating to transactions in which public servants are suspected or alleged to have acted improperly or in a corrupt manner”.
Unfortunately, the CVC Scheme finally accepted and notified by Government by a resolution of 1964, fell far short of the Committee’s recommendations. The basic weakness of this scheme, which is still in force, is that it has no statutory basis yet.
It continues to be the creature of 1964 Government Resolution which is liable to frequent changes at government’s sweet will.