Madras High Court notice to TN govt on plea against Pyare's appointment as State Vigilance Commissioner

When the petition from R S Bharathy, DMK organisation secretary and Rajya Sabha member, came up before Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose, his senior counsel P Wilson submitted that the state government has of late been nominating chief secretaries or officers in the rank of additional chief secretaries as vigilance commissioner.

"This has resulted in the entire State Vigilance Commission losing its character as an independent, objective, transparent and autonomous body. It has become another wing of the state government, thereby, defeating the very purpose of its constitution," he submitted.

The vigilance commission is an institution known for its integrity, he said, and noted that the Supreme Court in several cases had held that the office of the vigilance commissioner should be insulated from the executive and political bosses.

Wilson submitted that the government was treating this post as one of "mere transfer", thereby meaning that the person holding it could be transferred at any time if he does not "toe the line of the ruling party".

He pointed out that the government order based on which the post was created itself stipulated that the vigilance commissioner was to be appointed by the governor and that the appointment is for a five-year fixed tenure.

Advocate-General Vijay Narayan told the bench he would get instructions from the government why the previous state vigilance commissioner was transferred and why the new one has not been given a fixed tenure.

The bench then adjourned the matter to January 29 with a direction to the parties concerned to file their counter affidavits by January 24.

The DMK moved the court on January 11 against the government order, appointing Pyare as state vigilance commissioner, alleging that it was a move aimed at making its pending petition on methodology of selection for the post infructuous.

Bharathi submitted that the government by its January 8 order, had replaced V K Jayakodi with Mohan Pyare.

He had said his earlier petition was not only against the person, but also against the method of appointment and the selection process adopted by the government and the Governor's Secretariat.

If the State Vigilance Commission was really to be an objective, impartial and autonomous body to check corruption in administration, the vigilance commissioner cannot be the chief secretary or any other secretary to government, he said.

The person selected must be an independent officer appointed especially to the post with a secured tenure as done in the case of CBI director or central vigilance commissioner.

Wilson had submitted that the government's act in appointing Jayakodi as commissioner was "arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable" as he was a junior in rank to several officers, including the chief secretary.