On September 22, during a hearing on an application challenging the CVC ordinance by amicus curae Anil Divan, the apex court had expressed its objections to two aspects of the Ordinance. One: revival of the single-point directive (which makes it mandatory for the CBI to seek Government sanction before prosecution). And, two: exclusion of the clause ``others'' from the criteria of selection for the CVC.

Diwan argued that through this, the government wished to confine the post of CVC to IAS officers although the Law Commission had clearly stated that the CVC should be any person of``impeccable integrity.''

Following the court's observations, Sorabjee told the court that he had taken over the case and that his views on the issue, if accepted by the government, would take care of the grievances against the ordinance. The AG also agreed to convey it to the government to keep the Ordinance in abeyance till the matter was settled in the court.

Speaking to The Indian Express, Secretary (Personnel) Arvind Verma said that the government has not forwarded any proposal for amending the Ordinance so far and will wait for the AG's advice. Home Secretary B P Singh said that the Home Ministry was not involved in drafting or the amending of the Ordinance.

According to senior law officers, though any formal proposal to be submitted to the court is yet to be drafted, the broad areas of change are going to be essentially towards removing the single-point directive and broadening the field for selection of CVC and the Vigilance Commissioners so that it does not remain limited to bureaucratssince these were the two key areas where the actual ordinance differed from the judgment. The case is scheduled to come up for hearing on October 9 where the government is likely to seek some more time.

The hawala judgment had quashed the single point directive where prior permission was required before initiating even an enquiry against officers of the rank of joint secretaries and above.