Times of India: New Delhi: Wednesday, May 07, 2014.
In what is
clearly a measure of the stakes involved, this is the second time in 16 years
that the Supreme Court has struck down the Single Directive, which bars an
investigating agency from initiating a probe against any senior officer (above
the rank of joint secretary) without the prior permission of the government.
The first
time was through the landmark Jain Hawala verdict of December 1997 when a bench
headed by Chief Justice J S Verma invalidated the Single Directive which then in
the form of executive instructions to the CBI by the Central government.
Rejecting the argument that it was part of the government's supervisory
authority over the police, the apex court held that the effect of the Single
Directive was to thwart investigation and promote impunity in the upper
echelons.
This provoked
an immediate reaction from the government in the form of an ordinance which not
only restored the Single Directive but also conferred a statutory status on it.
When the Supreme Court objected to it, the government came up with another
ordinance in October 1998 deleting the provision related to the Single
Directive. In December 1998, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government introduced a
Bill meant to replace the ordinance. The Central Vigilance Commission Bill
however lapsed in April 1999 with the dissolution of the 12th Lok Sabha.
When a fresh
CVC Bill was introduced by the Vajpayee government in the 13th Lok Sabha in
December 1999, it was referred to a standing committee headed by Sharad Pawar.
The report presented by this committee in November 2000 controversially
recommended the resurrection of the Single Directive. The lone dissenter in the
committee was journalist Kuldip Nayar, who was then a member of the Rajya
Sabha.
While the
standing committee's majority report claimed that there was a "need to
protect bona fide actions at the decision making level", Nayar in his
dissenting note said that pliable public servants "who carry out the
errands of the political masters will go scot free".
With
Tuesday's decision, the Supreme Court has vindicated the concern raised by
Nayar, besides reviving the reform made by Justice Verma. The implications of
the latest verdict are far reaching. By removing the specious distinction
between senior and junior officers, the apex court has reopened the possibility
of a departmental head being booked in a corruption case immediately after he
had been trapped, without any prior approval from the government.
The
disapproval of the Single Directive is also a major boost for accountability as
the verdict dovetails with the RTI provision for disclosure of file notings.
Both the Supreme Court verdict and the RTI provision run contrary to the
bureaucracy's claim that officers at the decision making level need special protection
to act honestly and without fear.
.JPG)
.JPG)
