In the five months you have been CVC, you have issued a spate of directives trying to curb corruption in officialdom. How has the Government responded to your suggestions?

I think I have been getting cooperation. Take, for instance, the Reserve Bank of India. Its Governor, Dr Bimal Jalan, told me they had a burning problem of pending CBI cases against banks and the fear of the managers at the cutting edge in taking decisions. In two months we were able to bring out a special chapter whichdeals with handling cases of corruption in banks. This becomes law from January 1.

You recently said that the Government's tax amnesty scheme -- the VDIS -- encouraged corruption. Any reaction from official circles?

I don't know about the reaction but my views remain the same. Since honest taxpayers have to shell out 40 per cent of earnings and the VDIS offered a 30 per cent rate, the Government was itself encouraging corruption. Maybe the Government has taken note of what I said.

What about the CVC Ordinance itself? It had to be repromulgated since it had lapsed and has still to be enacted in Parliament...

This does not bother me at all. I have to be effective in whichever office I go from Day One. And when you are operating in a system, unless there are people who are alert, something like this can happen...it is very easy to lose sense of time in Government.

Did you remind the Government that the ordinance would lapse?

I told the appropriate authorities well in advance. ThBill was introduced on December 7 but was not passed. Though it is not the CVC's job to see its passage, I told the Government (orally) that if you do not reformulate the ordinance, I will have no job after January 10. Now I think the bill will be passed in the next budget session.

The Chief Vigilance Commissioner is supposed to be assisted by a maximum of four Vigilance Commissioners. Why are the appointments delayed?

Honestly, even this does not bother me. It is the responsibility of the Government to make the appointments. And the Section 9 of the Act shows that even with a single member, the CVC can carry on. So, I am in position and am acting. I am not going to move in the matter (of appointments) because that is not my role. There is no provision for the Vigilance Commissioners to be appointed in consultation with the CVC.

But the delay must be causing you some anxiety? Maybe the workload is too much...

I take it this way: if the panel is appointed now at least they will becomeinheritors of a culture that is evolving. A culture of greater transparency, activism, contact with the public and media. For 34 years the CVC was an administrative body and now thanks to the Supreme Court it is a statutory body. Having become a statutory body and having got a role to play in the superintendence of the CBI and to some extent, over the ED, people are looking to it to see whether we can punish the guilty or not. Therefore, sometime last month I asked the Revenue Department to give me the powers of confiscation under the Benami Transaction Act.

Have the powers been granted?

No. Only the Revenue Secretary told me he wants to discuss it. I said, alright you discuss, but at least give me the power a far as the public servants are concerned.

The CBI and ED have been functioning with a large number of vacancies, up to 30 per cent at various levels in the CBI. What progress has been made in this regard?

I have told the Director CBI that he should fill up the vacancies fast. Butthis is where we come up with an important question: Is the CBI an attractive posting for an IPS officer? Over the years the creature comforts in the state are higher than in the centre. Therefore I have come up with schemes of giving people more incentives for joining the CBI wherein they will continue to get the scales and perks of their parent organisations even as they join the CBI. I have mooted the idea but I do not even know if the Government has examined it. I do not mind making a formal proposal.

Are you happy with the choice of officials whose names are being put up for these posts ?

There is a problem here. I think it is better to keep these posts vacant than to have the wrong people enter organisations the CBI. Since the CBI deals with the sensitive issue of corruption, it cannot afford to have corrupt people. And even if some officials have a good confidential report, they can have a bad reputation. That is very important.

What follow-up action has been taken on the chargesagainst Ashok Aggarwal, head of the Delhi unit of the ED?

I don't supervise the ED the way I do the CBI. Its administration and supervision is under the Revenue Secretary. It is a complaint we have referred to the Government in the last week of December.

Has the CBI commenced an inquiry into the case?

I will have to chase it. That is all I can say.

What about the CVC's own backlog which runs into 5,000 cases pending departmental action?

There is a large pendancy since we get about 500 cases every month. Every office should take these cases -- mostly departmental inquiries which do not need prosecution -- and give them to retired, honest people. If you meet me after 7-8 months I am sure a bulk of these cases would have been resolved. Meanwhile, we will go by the departments' own judgment. You see, we are not starting on a clean slate. We are part of a system and slowly we will have to work around it.

Any progress on your intervention for forfeiting property of Governmentofficials involved in corruption cases?

I wrote to the Personnel Secretary, the Law Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary. I got a reply from the Law Secretary saying that law will have first to be whetted by the Law Commission. I discussed the idea with the Chairman of the Law Commission and I gave him two ideas on the Bill (the Corrupt Public Servants Forfeiture of Property Bill.) I told him you make the CVC the authority since I have statutory powers and he readily agreed. Secondly, I pointed out that don't have the clause in the draft that the act will come into force from a date notified by the Government. You've seen what has happened to the Prasar Bharati -- it took seven years for the Government to notify that! I said you should include a clause which will automatically become law 90 days after the President gives his assent. I have sent the bill to the Government with these two modifications.

Why have landmark corruption cases like the Bofors case or the Jain hawala caseended in a whimper?

That is because the homework has not been done properly. But I would not like to comment on specific investigations like the Bofors case without going through the documents.