Detailed Version Of 2G Scam

Parties accused of involvement

The selling of the licenses brought attention to three groups of entities - politicians and bureaucrats who had the authority to sell licenses, corporations who were buying the licenses and media professionals who mediated between the politicians and the corporations.

Politicians involved

A. Raja - the Minister of Communications and Information Technology who sold the licenses

M. K. Kanimozhi - Rajya Sabha MP

Bureaucrats involved

Siddharth Behura - Former Telecom Secretary

RK Chandolia - Raja's private secretary

Corporate Executives involved

Gautam Doshi - Managing Director of Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group

Surendra Pipara - senior vice- President of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and senior vice-President of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and Reliance Telecom

Hari Nair - senior vice-president of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group

Sanjay Chandra - Managing Director of Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd

Shahid Balwa - DB Realty promoter

Vinod Goenka - DB Realty promoter

Sharath Kumar - Managing Director of Kalaignar TV

Rajiv Agarwal and Asif Balwa (younger brother of Shahid Balwa) - chief executives of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables

Film and Entertainment persons involved

Karim Morani - Cineyug Media and Entertainment Ltd’s DirectoCorporations accused

Unitech Group a real estate company entering the telecom industry with its 2G bid; sold 60% of its company stake at huge profit to Telenor after buying licensing[2]

Swan Telecom sold 45% of its company stake at huge profit to Emirates Telecommunications Corporation (Etisalat) after buying licensing[2]

Loop Mobile

Videocon Telecommunications Limited

S Tel

Reliance Communications

[edit]Media persons accused

Nira Radia, a corporate lobbyist whose conversations with politicians and corporate entities were recorded by the government and leaked creating the Nira Radia tapes controversy

Barkha Dutt, an NDTV journalist alleged to have lobbied for A. Raja's appointment as minister

Vir Sanghvi, a Hindustan Times editor alleged to have edited articles to reduce blame in the Nira Radia tapes

Shortfall of money

A. Raja arranged the sale of the 2G spectrum licenses below their market value. Swan Telecom, a new company with few assets, bought a license for Rs. 1537 crore.[3] Shortly thereafter, the board sold 45% of the company to Etisalat for Rs. 4200 crore. Similarly, a company formerly invested in real estate and not telecom, the Unitech Group, purchased a license for Rs. 1661 crore and the company board soon after sold a 60% stake in their wireless division for Rs. 6200 crore to Telenor.[3] The nature of the selling of the licenses was that licenses were to be sold at market value, and the fact that the licenses were quickly resold at a huge profit indicates that the selling agents issued the licenses below market value.

Nine companies purchased licenses and collectively they paid the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology's telecommunications division Rs. 10,772 crore.[3] The amount of money expected for this licensing by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India was 1,76,700 crore.[4] The report on the details of the financials involved framed by CAG could be found at the website of Comptroller and auditor general of India (Supreme audit institution of Government of India).[5]

Relationship between media and government

Media sources such as OPEN and Outlook reported that Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi knew that corporate lobbyist Nira Radia was influencing the decisions of A. Raja.[6] The critics alleged that Dutt and Sanghvi knew about corruption between the government and the media industry, supported this corrupt activity, and suppressed news reporting the discovery of the corruption.[6]

Ratan Tata petitions over leak

The tapes leaked to the public include conversations between Nira Radia and Ratan Tata. Tata petitioned the government to acknowledge his right to privacy and demanded accountability for the leak, with the Minister for Home Affairs, CBI, Indian Income Tax Department, the Department of Telecommunication, and the Department of Information Technology as respondents in the petition.[7]

Chronology of Events and Investigation

May, 2007: A Raja takes over as Telecom Minister.

Aug, 2007: Process of allotment of 2G spectrum for telecom along with Universal Access Service (UAS) Licences initiated by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).

Sept 25, 2007: Telecom Ministry issues press note fixing deadline for application as October 1, 2007.

Oct 1, 2007: DoT receives 575 applications for UAS licences of 46 companies.

Nov 2, 2007: The Prime Minister writes to Raja directing him to ensure allotment of 2G spectrum in a fair and transparent manner and to ensure that licence fee was properly revised. Raja writes back to the Prime Minister rejecting many of his recommendations.

Nov 22, 2007: Finance Ministry writes to DoT raising concerns over the procedure adopted by it. Demand for review rejected.

Jan 10, 2008: DoT decides to issue licences on first-come-first-serve basis, preponing the cut-off date to September 25, from October 1, 2007. Later on the same day, DoT posted an announcement on its website saying those who apply between 3.30 pm and 4.30 pm would be issued licences in accordance with the said policy. [10][11]

2008: Swan Telecom, Unitech and Tata Teleservices sell off a part of their stakes at much higher rates to Etisalat, Telenor and DoCoMo, respectively.

May 4, 2009: An NGO Telecom Watchdog files complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on the illegalities in the spectrum allocation to Loop Telecom.

May 19, 2009: Another complaint was filed to the CVC by Arun Agarwal, highlighting grant of spectrum to Swan Telecom at throwaway prices.

2009: CVC directs CBI to investigate the irregularities in allocation of 2G spectrum.

July 1, 2009: Delhi HC holds advancing of cut-off date as illegal on a petition of telecom company S-Tel.

Oct 21, 2009: CBI registers a case and files an FIR against “unknown officers of DoT and unknown private persons/companies under various provisions of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.

Oct 22, 2009: CBI raids DoT offices.

Nov 16, 2009: CBI seeks details of tapped conversation of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia to find out involvement of middlemen in the grant of spectrum to telecom companies.

Mar 13, 2010: SC upholds Delhi HC verdict on cut off date advancement as illegal

Mar 31, 2010: CAG says that there was large scale irregularities in the spectrum allocation.

Apr 2, 2010: CBI DIG Vineet Agarwal and DG I-T Milap Jain, who were investigating the case, transferred.

May 6, 2010: Telephonic conversation between Raja and Niira Radia made public by the media.

May, 2010: NGO Centre for Public Interest litigation moves the Delhi High Court seeking investigation into the scam by SIT or CBI.

May 25, 2010: Delhi HC dismisses the petition.

Aug, 2010: Appeal filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.

Aug 18, 2010: HC refuses to direct the Prime Minister to decide on a complaint by Janata Party chief Swamy seeking sanction to prosecute Raja for his involvement in 2G scam.

Sept 13, 2010: SC asks government, Raja to reply within 10 days to three petitions filed by CPIL and others alleging there was a Rs 70,000 crore scam in the grant of telecom licences in 2008.

Sept 24, 2010: Swamy moves SC seeking direction to the PM to sanction prosecution of Raja.

Sept 27, 2010: Enforcement Directorate informs SC of probe against firms suspected to have violated FEMA. Says can’t deny or confirm now Raja’s involvement in the scam.

Oct 8, 2010: SC asks government to respond to CAG report about the scam.

Oct 21, 2010: Draft reports of CAG placed before the Supreme Court.

Oct 29, 2010: SC pulls up CBI for its tardy progress in the investigations into the scam.

Nov 10, 2010: CAG submits report on 2G spectrum to government stating loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to exchequer.

Nov 11, 2010: DoT files affidavit in SC saying CAG did not have the authority to question the policy decision as per which licence were issued to new players in 2008.

Nov 14, 2010: A Raja resigns as Telecom Minister

Nov 15, 2010: Kapil Sibal given additional charge of Telecom Ministry.

Nov 20, 2010: Affidavit on behalf of PM filed in Supreme Court. Rejects charge of inaction on Swamy’s complaint.

Nov 22, 2010: CBI tells SC it will file charge sheet in the case within three months.

Nov 22, 2010: CBI tells SC role of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia would be questioned by it.

Nov 24, 2010: SC reserves verdict on Swamy’s plea seeking direction to PM for grant of sanction to prosecute Raja.

Nov 25, 2010: SC ticks off CBI for not questioning Raja.

Nov 29, 2010: CBI files status report on 2G spectrum scam probe.

Nov 30, 2010: SC questions CVC P J Thomas’s moral right to supervise CBI’s probe into 3G spectrum scam as he himself was Telecom Secretary at that point of time.

Dec 1, 2010: SC directs original tapes containing conversation between corporate lobbyist Niira Radia and others be handed over to it.

Dec 1, 2010: Raja questions CAG findings in the SC.

Dec 2, 2010: Government places recorded tapes in the SC.

Dec 2, 2010: SC comes down heavily on Raja for bypassing and overruling PM’s advice to defer allocation of 2G spectrum by a few days.

Dec 8, 2010: SC favours including in the probe period since 2001 when first-come-first-serve was the norm for spectrum allocation.

Dec 8, 2010: SC asks Centre to consider setting up of a special court to try 2G spectrum scam case.

Dec 8, 2010: ED submits report. Says money trail covers 10 countries, including Mauritius.

Dec 14, 2010: Another PIL in SC seeking cancellation of new telecom licences and 2G spectrum allocated during Raja’s tenure.

Dec 15, 2010: Swamy files petition in a Delhi court seeking his inclusion as a public prosecutor in 2G spectrum case.

Dec 15, 2010: Swamy mentions in complaint that Raja favoured “ineligible” private companies Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd and Unitech Wireless Ltd in allocating the spectrum.

Dec 16, 2010: SC decides to monitor the CBI inquiry

Jan 4, 2011: Swamy moves SC seeking cancellation of 2G spectrum licences.

Jan 10, 2011: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on the plea seeking cancellation of 2G licenses. Also issues notices to 11 companies which allegedly did not fulfill the roll-out obligations or were ineligible.

Jan 30, 2011: Government’s decision to regularise licences of the companies which failed to meet the deadline for roll-out obligation challenged in the Supreme Court.

Feb 2, 2011: Raja, former Telecom Secretary Siddartha Behura and Raja’s former Personal Secretary R K Chandolia arrested and next day they were remanded in CBI custody.

Feb 8, 2011: Raja remanded to two more days of CBI custody. Behura and Chandolia sent to judicial custody.

Feb 8, 2011: Shahid Usman Balwa, promoter of Swan Telecom, arrested by CBI.

Feb 10, 2011: SC asks the CBI to bring under its scanner corporate houses which were beneficiaries of the 2G spectrum. Raja remanded to CBI custody for four more days by a special CBI court along with Balwa.

Feb 14, 2011: Raja’s CBI custody extended for three more days. Balwa’s custody extended for four days.

Feb 17, 2011: Raja sent to Tihar Jail under judicial custody.

Feb 18, 2011: Balwa sent to judicial custody.

Feb 24, 2011: CBI tells a Delhi court that Balwa facilitated transaction to Kalaignar TV.

Feb 28, 2011: Raja seeks judicial proceedings through video conferencing stating that he faces threat to life from fellow prisoners.

Mar 1, 2011: CBI tells SC that 63 persons are under scanner. Raja allowed by CBI court to appear before it via video-conferencing.

Mar 14, 2011: The Delhi High Court sets up special court to deal exclusively with 2G cases. Balwa also allowed to appear via video-conferencing.

Mar 29, 2011: SC permits CBI to file charge sheet on April 2 instead of March 31. Two more persons — Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agarwal — arrested.

Apr 2, 2011: The CBI files its first charge sheet in the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

Apr 25, 2011: CBI files second charge sheet and court issues summons to Kanimozhi, Sharad Kumar and Karim Morani taking cognizance of the charge sheet.

May 6, 2011: Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar appear before court and file bail pleas while Morani sought exemption from appearance on medical ground.

May 7, 2011: Court reserves order on Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar’s bail applications.

May 14, 2011: Court defers order on their bail pleas for May 20.

May 20, 2011: Court rejects bail pleas of Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar and orders their forthwith arrest.

June 20, 2011: SC rejects Kanimozhi’s bail plea

July 25, 2011: Arguments on Charge begins. Raja seeks to make Prime Minister and former finance minister P Chidambaram as witness.

Sept 22, 2011: CBI defends Chidambaram in SC, blames DoT for all wrongs.

Sept 26, 2011: CBI moves plea for framing fresh charge for criminal breach of trust against Raja, Chandolia and Behura.

Sept 29, 2011: CBI says role of Anil Ambani being probed, gives a virtual clean chit to Tata and Videocon group.

Oct 9, 2011: CBI files FIR against Maran and his brother.

Oct 10, 2011: The Supreme Court reservs notice against Subramanian Swamy’s plea for a probe into Home Minister Chidambaram’s role in the 2G scam.

Oct 22, 2011: Court finds prima facie evidence to put on trial all 17 accused including Raja on various counts like criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, cheating and forgery.

Response to scam

In early November 2010 Jayalalithaa accused the state chief minister M Karunanidhi of protecting A. Raja from corruption charges and called for A. Raja's resignation. By mid November A. Raja resigned.

In mid November the comptroller Vinod Rai issued show-cause notices to Unitech, S Tel, Loop Mobile, Datacom (Videocon), and Etisalat to respond to his assertion that all of the 85 licenses granted to these companies did not have the up-front capital required at the time of the application and were in other ways illegal. Some media sources have speculated that these companies will receive large fines but not have their licenses revoked, as they are currently providing some consumer service.Jai Hind !!!

Introduction To 2G Scam

The 2G spectrum scandal involved officials in the government of India illegally undercharging mobile telephony companies for frequency allocation licenses, which they would use to create 2G subscriptions for cell phones. The shortfall between the money collected and the money which the law mandated to be collected is 1,76,379 crore (1.763 trillion) rupees (roughly equivalent to 39 billion US dollars). The issuing of licenses occurred in 2008, but the scam came to public notice when the Indian Income Tax Department was investigating political lobbyist Nira Radia.
The government's investigation and the government's reactions to the findings in the investigation were the subject of debate, as were the nature of the Indian media's reactions. The discussion around the reactions to the 2G spectrum scam became known in the media as the Nira Radia tapes controversy.
Much of the credit of bringing this whole scam into public light goes to J.Gopikrishnan, a reporter from The Pioneer.Jai Hind!!!

Concept Of Diwali/ Concept of Anti Corruption

Diwali is celebrated on a nation-wide scale on Amavasya - the 15th day of the dark fortnight of the Hindu month of Ashwin, (October/November) every year. It symbolizes that age-old culture of India which teaches to vanquish ignorance that subdues humanity and to drive away darkness that engulfs the light of knowledge. Diwali, the festival of lights even to-day in this modern world projects the rich and glorious past of India.Every year on the dark nights of Diwali the sound of firecrackers announces the celebration of the favorite festival of Indians. Homes are decorated, sweets are distributed by everyone and thousands of lamps are lit to create a world of fantasy. Of all the festivals celebrated in India, Diwali is by far the most glamorous and important. Enthusiastically enjoyed by people of every religion, its magical and radiant touch creates an atmosphere of joy and festivity. The ancient story of how Diwali evolved into such a widely celebrated festival is different in various regions and states of India. In the north, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar and the surrounding areas, Diwali is the day when King Rama's coronation was celebrated in Ayodhya after his epic war with Ravana, the demon king of Lanka. By order of the royal families of Ayodhya and Mithila, the kingdom of which Sita was princess, the cities and far-flung boundaries of these kingdoms were lit up with rows of lamps, glittering on dark nights to welcome home the divine king Rama and his queen Sita after 14 years of exile, ending with an across-the-seas war in which the whole of the kingdom of Lanka was destroyed. On the day of Diwali festival, doorways are hung with torans of mango leaves and marigolds. Rangolis are drawn with different colored powders to welcome guests. The traditional motifs are often linked with auspicious symbols of good luck. Oil diyas are arranged in and around the house. Because of these flickering lamps, the festival has acquired its name : Dipawali or Diwali meaning 'a rows of lamps'. On this day, people buy something for the house or some jewelry for the women of the house. It is auspicious to be buy something metallic, such as silver. Whatever may be the fables and legends behind the celebrations of Diwali, all people exchange sweets, wear new clothes and buy jewelry at this festive time. Card parties are held in many homes. Diwali has become commercialized as the biggest annual consumer spree because every family shops for sweets, gifts and fireworks. However, in all this frenzy of shopping and eating, the steady, burning lamp is a constant symbol of an illuminated mind. Jai Hind !!!

Right To Information Act 2005

try this link http://righttoinformation.gov.in/webactrti.htm Jai Hind !!!

Jai Andhra Movement 1972

During 1972, another agitation known as the Jai Andhra Movement was launched in the Andhra region. The agitation was a sequel to the Telangana agitation which demanded that only `Mulkis' should be appointed to the posts in Telangana including the Hyderabad city. The `Mulki' issue had a long history behind it. As early as in 1919, the Nizam of Hyderabad issued a firman laying down that only `Mulkis' are eligible for public appointments in the State. `Mulki' was defined as one who was born in the State of Hyderabad or resided there continuously for fifteen years and had given an affidavit that he abandoned the idea of returning to his native place. Even after the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the Mulki rules continued to be in force in the Telangana region. As these rules stood in the way of the people of the Andhra region to compete for the posts, their validity was challenged in the High Court. A full bench of the High Court by a four-one majority held that the Mulki rules were not valid and operative after the formation of Andhra Pradesh.
But on an appeal by the State Government, the Supreme Court declared on the 3rd of October, 1972 that the Mulki rules were valid and were in force. The judgement created a great political crisis in the State. The people of the Andhra region felt that they were reduced to the status of second class citizens in their own State capital. They felt that the only way to uphold their dignity was by severing their connection with Telangana and started a movement for the separation of Andhra region from Andhra Pradesh.
As the agitation continued, President's rule was imposed in the State on the 10th of January, 1973. Finally, a political settlement was arrived at under the aegis of the Central Government. A `Six-Point Formula' was agreed upon by the leaders of the two regions to prevent any recurrence of such agitations in future. The `Six-Point Formula' included (1) the abolition of Mulki rules and the Telangana Regional Committee and (2) the establishment of a Central University at Hyderabad to augment educational facilities.
On December 10, 1973, President's rule in the State was revoked and a popular ministry with Sri Jalagam Vengala Rao as the Chief Minister was inducted. With this, normalcy returned and the State enjoyed political stability. Jai Hind !!!

1969 telangana agitation

The Telangana agitation started in the first week of January 1969 in Khammam when students demanded the implementation of the Telangana safeguards enumerated in the Gentlemen's Agreement. It soon spread to different parts of Telangana. The students got divided into two groups: one demanding the implementation of safeguards and the other demanding a separate Telangana state.
Non-Gazetted Officers threatened direct action on January 11, 1969, if their demands were not met. At the outbreak of the agitation, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh called for an All-Party Meeting and announced that there was a perfect unanimity among the leaders to 'achieve full integration of Andhra Pradesh State.
Two issues were discussed and agreed upon:
1) The appointment of a senior civil service officer to decide the question of Telangana surpluses
2) Relieving of all domicile persons from Telangana posts and providing jobs for them in the Andhra region.
Following the All-Party Accord of January 1969, the State Government issued orders for the transfer of non-domicile public employees from Telangana. The Government order on these transfers was the Public Employment Act of 1957. The rules were challenged by Andhra employees in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court struck down the Public Employment Act and the Rules. The Government appealed to the division bench of the High Court.
A few other Andhra employees led by A.V.S. Narasimha Rao filed a separate writ petition in the Supreme Court on February 4, 1969, challenging the validity of the Government Order and also the Public Employment Act of 1957 and the Rules. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court gave its judgement on March 28 quashing the Government Order.
As a follow-up measure of the All-Party accord, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh arranged for the accounting of Telangana surplus funds. Kumar Lalith, Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General, assessed the surplus funds as Rs.34.10 crores.
The Telangana agitation continued in the meantime. In the beginning it was leaderless. Madan Mohan, a lawyer, formed a forum known as the Telangana Praja Samithi (TPS) in February 1969. Chenna Reddy was sympathetic to these leaders. Violence increased. Firing was often employed to disperse violent crowds. The TPS organized conventions in many towns across Telangana and soon got strengthened. Chenna Reddy came out openly in support of a separate Telangana and K.V. Ranga Reddy gave his blessings to the movement. Law and order continued to deteriorate.
The Prime Minister Indira Gandhi discussed the problem with leaders of the Opposition in Parliament on April 9,1969. Except for the Swatantra Party all others did not support a separate state. The Prime Minister Indira Gandhi rejected the demand for the ouster of Kasu Brahmananda Reddy from the leadership of the Andhra Pradesh Congress.
The Prime Minister announced an Eight-Point Formula on April 11,1969 to ensure the development of Telangana. In consonance with this formula, the Centre appointed two committees:
1. Committee of Jurists under former Justice K.N. Wanchoo to suggest measures to provide constitutional safeguards for the Telangana people in the matter of public employment
2. Committee under Justice Bhargava to assess the revenue surpluses of Telangana.
In spite of these measures the agitation mounted and grew in intensity. Bandhs, hartals and processions were very frequent. Demand for a separate state became the central theme of the agitation.
The Prime Minister visited Hyderabad on June 4, 1969. She met leaders of different groups and political parties. Subsequently, then Union Home Minister, Y. B. Chavan, also visited Hyderabad to have discussions. Consensus reached on two things:
(1) The dismissal of Brahmananda Reddy's ministry.
(2) Proclamation of Presidential rule in Andhra Pradesh.
Realizing that the agitation was very strongly motivated, particularly about the dismissal of his government, Brahmananda Reddy tendered his resignation on June 27. The Congress leadership sent Congress President Nijalingappa and a senior member Kamaraj Nadar, to seek the verdict of the State Legislature Party. The Congress Legislature Party affirmed its support to Kasu Brahmananda Reddy and suggested that he should continue until normalcy was restored and a peaceful changeover should be opted, giving the leadership to someone from Telangana.
The Telangana leaders felt that agitation politics alone would not be sufficient to dethrone Brahmananda Reddy. This realization made the TPS enter into the electoral politics. It won a by-election in June 1970, defeating the Congress (R). By this time, the Congress had already split at the national level and the TPS supported the leadership of Indira Gandhi. Brahmananda Reddy also supported her.
In the December of 1970, Indira Gandhi dissolved the Lok Sabha and announced a mid-term poll. The TPS eventually contested all the 14 seats to Parliament from Telangana and won 10 out of them. In spite of her overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha, Indira Gandhi did not give any leverage to the TPS which opted for a compromise in September 1971 and merged with the Congress (R). The deal involved:
1. Continuation of Mulki Rules;
2. Separate budget and accounts for Telangana
3. Separate Pradesh Congress Committee for Telangana
4.Resignation of Brahmananda Reddy in favor of a Chief Minister from Telangana.
The Telangana agitation did not achieve its important goal of a separate state, but secured assurance of safeguards for the region. Its achievement was quite significant. It wrested for the first time the Chief Ministership from the politically dominant Andhras. However, the new Chief Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao (former Education Minister in the State Cabinet) was an integrationist and politically a light weight in the Reddy dominated Telangana politics. Ten portfolios in his ministry went to Telangana, three of them belonging to the erstwhile TPS.

Cental Vigilance Commission

It does not have adequate resources commensurate with the large number of complaints that it receives. CVC is a very small set up with a staff strength less than 200. It is supposed to check corruption in more than 1500 central government departments and ministries, some of them being as big as Central Excise, Railways, Income Tax etc. Therefore, it has to depend on the vigilance wings of respective departments and forwards most of the complaints for inquiry and report to them. While it monitors the progress of these complaints, there is delay and the complainants are often disturbed by this. It directly enquires into a few complaints on its own, especially when it suspects motivated delays or where senior officials could be implicated. But given the constraints of manpower, such number is really small.
CVC is merely an advisory body. Central Government Departments seek CVC’s advice on various corruption cases. However, they are free to accept or reject CVC’s advice. Even in those cases, which are directly enquired into by the CVC, it can only advise government. CVC mentions these cases of non-acceptance in its monthly reports and the Annual Report to Parliament. But these are not much in focus in Parliamentary debates or by the media.
Experience shows that CVC’s advice to initiate prosecution is rarely accepted and whenever CVC advised major penalty, it was reduced to minor penalty. Therefore, CVC can hardly be treated as an effective deterrent against corruption.
CVC cannot direct CBI to initiate enquiries against any officer of the level of Joint Secretary and above on its own. The CBI has to seek the permission of that department, which obviously would not be granted if the senior officers of that department are involved and they could delay the case or see to it that permission would not be granted.
CVC does not have powers to register criminal case. It deals only with vigilance or disciplinary matters.
It does not have powers over politicians. If there is an involvement of a politician in any case, CVC could at best bring it to the notice of the Government. There are several cases of serious corruption in which officials and political executive are involved together.
It does not have any direct powers over departmental vigilance wings. Often it is seen that CVC forwards a complaint to a department and then keeps sending reminders to them to enquire and send report. Many a times, the departments just do not comply. CVC does not have any really effective powers over them to seek compliance of its orders.
CVC does not have administrative control over officials in vigilance wings of various central government departments to which it forwards corruption complaints. Though the government does consult CVC before appointing the Chief Vigilance Officers of various departments, however, the final decision lies with the government. Also, the officials below CVO are appointed/transferred by that department only. Only in exceptional cases, if the CVO chooses to bring it to the notice of CVC, CVC could bring pressure on the Department to revoke orders but again such recommendations are not binding.
Appointments to CVC are directly under the control of ruling political party, though the leader of the Opposition is a member of the Committee to select CVC and VCs. But the Committee only considers names put up before it and that is decided by the Government. The appointments are opaque.
CVC Act gives supervisory powers to CVC over CBI. However, these supervisory powers have remained ineffective. CVC does not have the power to call for any file from CBI or to direct them to do any case in a particular manner. Besides, CBI is under administrative control of DOPT rather than CVC.Jai Hind!!!
Therefore, though CVC is relatively independent in its functioning, it neither has resources nor powers to enquire and take action on complaints of corruption in a manner that meets the expectations of people or act as an effective deterrence against corruption.