Attorney General G E Vahanvati told the Supreme Court today that filing of a chargesheet is not a blot on a public servant and does not disqualify him from being the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC).
Vahanvati was arguing the case before the apex court against a writ by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of P J Thomas as the CVC. Thomas was involved in the palmolein scandal of 1991 when he was food secretary with the Kerala government.
The Attorney General told the bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia that while considering appointment of the CVC, the integrity and suitability of the candidate should be considered and a case pending before the court should not be elevated to a degree that should disqualify the candidate on his integrity. The Centre’s counsel argued that anyone can file a complaint against any person.
Thomas, who is at present facing trial in a criminal court, was appointed as the CVC after a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition considered his eligibility and suitability. BJP’s Sushma Swaraj had placed a note of dissent in appointing Thomas.
Replying to the allegations of the Centre for PIL, Vahanvati submitted: “Once a person is appointed as secretary on clearance by CVC, he can be considered for empanelment and no further inquiry is required.”
In response, the Bench observed that the CVC could not be the final authority in such a sensitive matter. The appointment has to be in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment in the Vineet Narain (Hawala) case, which makes it clear that the CVC has to be a person independent, impartial, free and fair and someone who should act uninfluenced by the executive.
The Bench said the chargesheet and the sanction for prosecution of Thomas does not seem to have been considered by the Department of Personnel and Training. “The totality of the circumstances must be taken into account,” the judges observed.
More From This Section
Regarding the dissent of Swaraj, the counsel said there was no need for unanimity among the three members of the committee. A single member cannot veto the decision of the majority members. This is not the intention of the law under which the CVC is appointed.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Thomas, reiterated that he was a victim of political rivalry in Kerala. The CVC had cleared him on the basis of a note prepared by the department of personnel, he said.