The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has reversed its policy that briefly empowered unit heads to register cases on their own volition and without the prior sanction of the agency’s director.
Henceforth, cases would be registered and surprise checks conducted only with the written approval of the director. An exception has been made in registration of First Information Report (FIR) in ‘trap cases.’
The Inspection Cell at the VACB headquarters will vet the complaints received at the agency’s various units and counsel the director.
ADVERTISEMENT
The order promulgated on March 29 has signalled a remarkable break with former director Jacob Thomas’s legacy in the agency. It has annulled his decision that caused registration of umpteen cases without the director’s concurrence.
Mr. Thomas’s order in 2016 had reflected the spirit of the Supreme Court order in the oft-quoted Lalita Kumari case. It insisted that a police officer was bound to register an FIR on receiving information of a cognisable offence.
The momentous order and Mr. Thomas’s public image as a hard-charging anti-corruption crusader caused the Vigilance to be hit by a deluge of complaints, both genuine and fake. One unit received 1,500 petitions last year, overwhelming its scarce resources.
ADVERTISEMENT
The decision also had its unintended pitfalls. It opened the agency to criticism that cases were registered callously against public servants without due diligence or vetting by superior officers as mandated in the Vigilance manual. Mr. Thomas's order was also seen as one that aided top officers evade vicarious responsibility for the actions of their juniors and pass directions orally with nothing on record.
The government had felt that the “arbitrary action” on the part of the VACB exacerbated the fissures in the State’s bureaucracy, often impeding administration.
The political executive also perceived the nepotism case against former Minister E.P. Jayarajan and the disproportionate assets case against bureaucrat K.M. Abraham as manifestations of the telling “lack of supervision” in the Vigilance under Mr. Thomas’s watch.
The High Court also echoed similar sentiments when it asked whether there was a “Vigilance raj” in the State when considering Mr. Jayarajan’s plea to quash the case against him.