Chawla became the chief election commissioner (CEC) in April 2009, to see through the last Lok Sabha election and retired after a year in July 2010. Thomas was appointed as the central vigilance commissioner (CVC) in 2010 and became the first CVC ever whose appointment was quashed by the Supreme Court of India. Sharma was installed on 23 May 2013 as the new comptroller and auditor general of India (CAG), against whose appointment the apex court has already admitted two PIL cases.

Controversial Chawla, as admonished by the Shah Commission, an independent body headed by former chief justice of India, J C Shah, to inquire into emergency atrocities under prime minister Indira Gandhi, commented in its final report that Navin Chawla ‘is unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others.’ Prior to his appointment, CEC N Gopalaswami wrote to the President of India seeking Chawla’s removal alleging that Chawla had discharged his duties as Election Commissioner in a partisan manner, seeking to further the interests of ‘one party.’

Former Kerala chief secretary Thomas’ appointment as CVC was made under equally controversial circumstances when there was a corruption case pending against him for his role in importing palm oil at high prices. A huge public noise was raised after Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj dissented against the appointment of Thomas as CVC. Yet, the government went on to appoint him. But, he had to be removed on the Supreme Court's intervention.

The appointment of Sharma as CAG too has raised public eyebrows as he may be required to depose before official investigating agencies into several controversial defence deals during his tenure as the defence secretary, the office he held until his prized elevation to the constitutional post. Several distinguished citizens, including legal luminaries and former generals, have urged the Supreme Court to set aside Sharma’s appointment as CAG since those deals are likely to come under judicial scrutiny.

Sharma, as director-general (defence acquisitions) and also as the defence secretary, was involved in the controversial procurement of 12 VVIP helicopters worth Rs 3,500-crore for the Air Force from Italy. His tenure in the defence ministry witnessed an eruption of scams relating to Tatra trucks and five offset contracts worth Rs 3,410 crore that were allegedly not ‘in consonance with the provisions laid down in the defence procurement procedure.’

Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan in his petition before the apex court asked how Sharma as CAG judge his own action earlier as defence secretary. Another petition has been filed by a group of eminent personalities, including former CEC N Gopalaswami and two former Navy chiefs R H Thaliani and L Ramdas, sought directions for framing a transparent selection procedure for posts such as CAG based on a definite criteria and urged the apex court to set aside Sharma’s appointment because several ‘controversial defence deals likely to come under the scanner materialised during his tenure as defence secretary.’

Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that Sharma’s appointment was liable to be ‘declared non est or void as it is made arbitrarily by a procedure that does not withstand the test of constitutionality, also on the ground of conflict of interest, and nemo judex in causa sua, i.e. no person shall be a judge in his own cause.’ The government’s desperate attempt to install the corrupt and politically pliable elements in such sensitive positions as CAG, CVC and CBI director gives an impression that it is trying to institutionalise corruption.

Not these appointments alone, the UPA government is now out to demolish the very independence and authority of another constitutional institution, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), bringing it under an apex financial regulatory body to be presided by finance minister himself. An unfortunate difference in perception is dogging the RBI and the union finance ministry over the functioning of the Financial Stability and Development Council (FSDC), an apex body formed by the government to act as a super regulator.

Why is the government suddenly after RBI? Why does it want to curb its authority as the supreme monetary regulator? The reason is simple. The RBI governor has been refusing to accept the industry-prompted government reasoning to lower interest rates despite the continuing high inflation. The government’s wrong trade and fiscal policies are mainly responsible for the ongoing high inflation and rupee depreciation. The RBI’s tight money and currency control measures have kept inflation under manageable level. The country’s central bank refused to dance to the tune of the spendthrift government.

Both RBI governor Duvvuri Subbarao and financial services secretary Rajiv Takru have taken the issue to the public in support of their individual standpoints. Subbarao is clearly – and, rightly so – against FSDC playing any further role than acting as a coordinator among financial regulators to ensure financial sector stability only. Takru, on the other hand, stressed the need for a super regulator while clarifying that the government was trying to hammer down a solution by forcing the central bank.

‘There should be a coordination body such as the FSDC, but the coordination body should be just that – a coordination body which will have more importance during a crisis time – but in normal times, will be at a low level equilibrium,’ the RBI governor has said and expressed reservations on the recommendations of the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC), which suggests giving a statutory body status to the FSDC for financial stability and a board to be headed by the finance minister. Doesn’t the existence of another statutory body on financial stability undermine RBI’s statutory authority in this area? The country’s central bank has some reservations about that sort of an arrangement. In particular, the concern is that the responsibility for financial stability can at best be given to a committee rather than to an institution.

Statutory bodies such as FSDC and the proposed National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), modeled on a similar body in the same name in the USA, are among the UPA moves towards further centralisation of authority in the government hands. They are setting a dangerous trend to insulate the executive against all other democratic institutions, to sabotage the ‘checks-and-balances’ provision and the federal structure of the constitution. It has become a matter of great public concern. If the government succeeds in its design to weaken the institutions such as the Election Commission, CAG, CVC and RBI, its next attempt could be directed at the very justice system. (IPA)