The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is India's apex integrity institution, established in 1964 on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. It gained statutory status in 2003 with the enactment of the Central Vigilance Commission Act. Its primary role is to inquire into offenses alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to supervise vigilance administration in the Central Government.

Composition of the CVC: The CVC is a multi-member body comprising:

1. A Central Vigilance Commissioner (Chairperson)
2. Not more than two Vigilance Commissioners (Members)

They are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Union Minister of Home Affairs, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Their tenure is four years or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. They can be removed by the President under specific circumstances, similar to a Supreme Court judge, ensuring their independence.

Functions of the CVC:

1. Inquiry and Investigation: The CVC can inquire into offenses alleged to have been committed by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It can also direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate such cases.
2. Supervision of Vigilance Administration: It exercises superintendence over the vigilance administration of various Ministries, Departments, and organizations of the Central Government.
3. Advisory Role: The CVC advises the Central Government and its organizations on matters related to vigilance, anti-corruption policies, and procedures.
4. Review of CBI Investigations: It reviews the progress of investigations conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) into offenses referred to them under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Receiving Complaints: It receives complaints on corruption or misuse of office and recommends appropriate action. It is designated as the agency to receive disclosures under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
6. Recommendations on Disciplinary Action: Based on inquiries, it recommends disciplinary action against corrupt public servants.

Limitations of the CVC: Despite its crucial role, the CVC faces several limitations that restrict its effectiveness:

1. Advisory Body Only: The CVC's recommendations are advisory and not binding on the government departments. This significantly curtails its power to enforce its decisions and ensure compliance.
2. Lack of Independent Investigative Machinery: The CVC does not have its own investigative wing. It largely relies on the CBI or departmental vigilance officers for investigations, which can lead to delays or compromise the impartiality of inquiries.
3. Jurisdictional Constraints: The CVC's jurisdiction does not extend to Members of Parliament or state government officials, limiting its comprehensive reach in tackling corruption.
4. Dual Control over CBI: While the CVC supervises the CBI's investigations, the appointment and transfer of CBI officers are handled by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), leading to potential conflicts and hampering CBI's autonomy.
5. Limited Resources: The CVC often operates with limited manpower and financial resources, which affects its capacity to handle the large volume of complaints and conduct thorough oversight.
6. Lack of Power to Register Criminal Cases: The CVC cannot register criminal cases. It can only recommend an investigation, which then has to be pursued by other agencies.
7. Appointment Process Concerns: While designed to be independent, the appointment process, involving political executive members, can sometimes raise questions about the complete autonomy of the commissioners.

In conclusion, the CVC is a vital institution in India's anti-corruption framework, providing a necessary check on public administration. However, addressing its structural and functional limitations, particularly by granting it more teeth to enforce its recommendations and providing it with greater investigative autonomy, would significantly enhance its efficacy in promoting transparency and accountability.