New Delhi: The Supreme Court today decided to examine the file on appointment of new CVC P J Thomas, whose name figured in a charge sheet in a criminal case and is allegedly involved in the cover-up of 2G spectrum scam, saying it wanted to know if eligibility criteria had been followed.
"We would like to see the file (first)," said a bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia on a petition questioning the new Central Vigilance Commissioner's integrity and challenging his appointment.
"We want to know whether the eligibility criteria of the outstanding civil servant has been followed or not. This is the touchstone on which the entire matter depends," said the bench also comprising Justices K S Radhakrishnan and
Swatanter Kumar.
Adjourning the matter for two weeks, the bench said it would like to see if the consultation process has been followed.
Refuting the allegations in a petition filed by civil societies-- Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Common Cause-- questioning Thomas's appointment as CVC, Attorney General Goolam E. Vahanvati said the statements made in the petition were not correct.
He said Thomas had no role in the Palmoleine export case.
The petition by the two civil societies had contended that Thomas was considered for the crucial post despite objection from the Leader of the Opposition.
The petitioners had contended that Thomas could not be considered as a person of "impeccable integrity" as he was chargesheeted in the Palmoleine export scam when he was Kerala's Secretary in the state Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies and had secured bail from the local court.
The PIL said he also could not be appointed as CVC on account of "conflict of interest" as till recently he was serving as the Secretary in Telecom Ministry and there was allegation that he was involved in the cover-up of the 2G
spectrum scam, which, according to the petitioners, has caused a loss of Rs 70,000 to the state exchequer.
The civil societies have sought the court's direction to declare as illegal Thomas' appointment on the ground that there was alleged violation of Section 4 of Central Vigilance Commission Act as the Prime Minister and the Home Minister insisted on his name despite objection by the Leader of the
Opposition, which shows the government had decided in advance
to appoint him.
"The Prime Minister and the Home Minister recommended the name of Thomas for selection despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition objected to his name being selected. So, the Leader of Opposition was forced to record her dissent. Hence, her presence was rendered meaningless in the appointment," the petition alleged.
It further said, "When the country's highest court (apex court) and Parliament held that the CVC would be selected by the three-member committee including the Leader of the Opposition, it was patently obvious that the said
committee would decide by unanimity or consensus. It was nowhere said that the committee would decide by majority. The latter interpretation would make the presence of the Leader of the Opposition meaningless as the Prime Minister and the Home Minister would always be ad-idem and the person
selected would be a government nominee. Therefore, the manner in which Thomas was selected makes his appointment illegal, bad in law and hence void ab-initio."
Comments
0 comment