In a severe blow to the UPA-2 government, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the appointment of central vigilance commissioner P.J. Thomas in view of his name figuring in a pending corruption case. It said the issue of corruption cannot be allowed to remain hidden under technicalities cited by the Union government to defend him.

Shortly after the verdict, Union law minister M. Veerappa Moily announced that Mr Thomas, a former IAS officer from the Kerala cadre, had resigned as CVC. Mr Thomas’ lawyer, however, maintained he had not done so. Legal experts noted, however, that with his appointment set aside, his resignation becomes immaterial.
Reacting to the order, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said: “I respect the Supreme Court verdict.” Dr Singh is likely to make a statement on the floor of Parliament on Friday.
The Congress tried to put up a brave face when asked if the court’s order had come as an embarrassment for the government, saying: “Error is there, that is why the court has intervened in the matter.” It added that at the same time “no malafide has been alleged, and no malafide proved”.
Significantly, the country’s highest court also directed that future CVC appointees need not remain “restricted to civil servants”, and that persons with “impeccable integrity” from other fields too can be considered for the post. While the court order came as a huge embarrassment to the government, already reeling under several scams, a gleeful Opposition was quick to attack it once again on its decision to appoint Mr Thomas as CVC.
The strongly-worded verdict on Thursday by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia came as a virtual indictment of the majority of the three-member high-powered committee — comprising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and home minister P. Chidambaram — who ignored the dissent note of Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj in going ahead with making Mr Thomas CVC.
The BJP, whose Lok Sabha leader Sushma Swaraj had opposed Mr Thomas’ appointment, said Thursday that Dr Singh was “morally responsible” for it. BJP president Nitin Gadkari said the court’s order was a “slap” in the government’s face. The Left parties too did not spare the government, criticising it for appointing Mr Thomas as CVC.
In its strongly-worded order, the bench, which also comprised Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, ruled: “The menace of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities, and in such cases probes conducted are required to be determined on fact and in accordance with the law.”
Rejecting the government’s argument that Mr Thomas was an honest officer and rated highly competent, the court said it was not a question of his personal integrity but the integrity of the institution of CVC, which has a vital job monitoring corruption throughout the country.
“The institutional integrity is the primary consideration which the high-powered committee is required to consider while making recommendations under Section 4 of the CVC Act for appointing the CVC,” the court said, adding that the committee should also take into consideration the vital question of institutional competency.
“If the selection adversely affects institutional competency and functioning of the CVC, then it shall be the duty of the HPC not to recommend such a candidate,” said the verdict, which was written by the CJI himself.
The court said vigilance was an integral part of all government institutions. “Anti-corruption measures are the responsibility of the Centre,” the CJI pointed out, citing the importance of institutions like the CBI, the administrative vigilance division in the department of personnel and training, domestic vigilance units in all ministries, departments and PSUs, and above all the CVC, the apex watchdog against corruption.
The court, however, was not in favour of requiring the committee’s decision to be unanimous — on the grounds that this would effectively give “veto power” to every member of the committee. This, the court held, would make the working of the CVC Act “unworkable”. It said if any member differed on an appointment, he/she had to spell out the reasons in detail, and those in the majority also had to justify the appointment by giving their detailed reasons. This was not done by either side in the case of Mr Thomas.
Shortly after the court delivered its eagerly-awaited verdict, Mr Thomas and Mr Moily met the Prime Minister to deliberate upon the development. PMO minister of state V. Narayanasamy attended the meeting. Mr Moily and Mr Narayanasamy later met the UPA’s top political troubleshooter, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Mr Moily said the court ruling should not be seen as an embarrassment either to the government or the PM. “There is no such illegality done by the Prime Minister. The PM has been very clear.” He added: “The Supreme Court passes an order. If there are any procedural things involved, they are commented upon. We are here to rectify and proceed further.”
In view of the court laying down certain guidelines on future CVC appointments, Mr Moily said the government would “set right the procedure for such appointments”. He said: “There are some set procedures. That procedure would have been questioned (by the Supreme Court), and we will set right procedures for the future.”