DMK challenges appointment of State Vigilance Commissioner

The plea has also sought for a consequent direction to treat the office of SVC as an ‘integrity institution’ by giving it a secure tenure and make appointments to the said post after a consultative and transparent process.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, who heard the plea, adjourned it to August 18 after directing the Advocate General to get instructions from the Government.

Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing on behalf of DMK’s organising secretary R S Bharathi, who moved the plea, argued that the office of the State Vigilance Commission is an “integrity institution”, a doctrine developed by the Supreme Court.

He said the Vigilance Commissions at the Central and State were conceived as autonomous bodies to check corruption in Government administration. This was also the mandate of the Santhanam Committee’s Report in 1962. The TN Government incorporated this requirement through a GO dated November 8, 1965.

But contrary to this, the Government has “transferred and appointed” Jeyakodi as if it is a routine transfer.

Wilson further argued that the intention of such a Government order is to ensure that the SVC can be transferred out any time if he acts against the Government or the Council of Ministers while as per law, the State Vigilance Commissioner’s tenure should be a fixed tenure of 5 years. )The Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the said officer is honest and that the appointment has been done in accordance with the law.