The government’s problems have no end in the Supreme Court: on Monday it questioned the appointment of central vigilance commissioner P.J. Thomas, seeking a clarification from the Centre how he would be able to function as a watchdog against corruption when he is himself facing criminal charges in the decades-old palmolein import scam case.
The Centre, through attorney-general Goolam E. Vahavati, defended its decision, saying if the criteria of “impeachable integrity” laid down by the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain (Jain hawala) case verdict for appointment of CVCs was to be “included”, then even “judicial appointments” would be subject to scrutiny and challenge.
“If this criteria is included, then every judicial appointment will be subject to scrutiny and every constitutional appointment will come under challenge,” Mr Vahanvati said, claiming that legal opinion in the palmolein case was in favour of Mr Thomas.
But a bench comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar was not impressed with the argument of the government’s chief law officer, and said while the court was not against a particular individual it was concerned about the institution of the CVC.
“We are concerned about the appointment of the CVC, not other appointments. Just consider this case. Let us proceed on the presumption that in every stage in every case people (who come before CVC) will ask that you can’t proceed because you are an accused in a criminal case. How will you function?” the CJI queried.
“He will not be able to function in any matter as he will face this problem repeatedly,” the court told the attorney-general in clear terms.
While the law officer insisted that the chargehseet had been pending since 2000 and in between Mr Thomas had got several promotions on merit, and had gone on to become chief secretary of Kerala and later held several other important positions at the Centre, the CJI said: “I am asking a simple question: as CVC he will order investigations in every case. Here is a chargesheet against him — you may consider this. We are not saying anything on the merits of the palmolein case.”
Brushing aside the A-G’s reiteration that the chargesheet should not be the sole reason to question his appointment, the CJI asked Mr Vahanvati to take clear “instructions” from the government on what its stand was on the issue.
“Just for our discussion first take instructions (from the government) on whether he will be able to function or not. In the meantime, we will look into the files,” the CJI told the attorney-general, giving the government two weeks to respond.
The A-G had earlier placed the files relating to Mr Thomas’ appointment in a sealed cover before the court. His appointment was challenged in separate PILs by former chief election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh and some other prominent citizens and the NGO Centre for PIL, alleging that the government had “ignored the dissenting note” of Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj, one of the members of the selection committee, along with the Prime Minister and Union home minister.
The petitioners also alleged that the government had “ignored” serious allegations against Mr Thomas that as telecom secretary he had tried a “coverup” in the 2G spectrum allocation scam.