Controversial CVC P J Thomas appears to have got a breather with the Supreme Court today issuing notice to him on a plea seeking his removal from the key post which will now be heard on January 27.
The apex court also issued notice to the government on the petition challenging the appointment of Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner on the ground that he is facing corruption charges.
The court listed the matter for final hearing on January 27.
"We have gone through the file, we will keep the matter for final hearing," a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said seeking response from the government and Thomas on the petitions challenging his appointment as CVC.
Attorney General G E Vahanvati accepted the notice on behalf of the government but declined to accept it on behalf of Thomas.
"I cannot accept notice on behalf of Thomas," the AG said when advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation submitted that Vahanvati can accept the notice for all the respondents.
The bench also said that it wants to keep the matter for final hearing immediately.
More From This Section
The AG sought six weeks to file response to the notice.
Bhushan said that it was a serious matter about a crucial post and wanted the matter to be taken up earlier.
He submitted that he will serve the notice to Thomas tomorrow itself. The court posted the matter for January 27 saying that all the pleadings in the matter has to be completed by the next date of hearing.
The bench also comprising justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar directed the apex court registry that the file relating to the appointment of CVC which it had called for be returned in the course of day to the government.
Thomas was appointed as CVC on September 7 this year.
CPIL and some other imminent persons including former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh have challenged his appointment as CVC.
The two PILs--one filed by an NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation and other by the former CEC--had contended that Thomas was considered for the crucial post despite objection from the Leader of the Opposition who was part of a high-power 3-member committee for the appointment of CVC.
The petitioners had contended that Thomas could not be considered as a person of "impeccable integrity" as he was chargesheeted in the Palmoleine import 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 PILs 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 crore to the state exchequer.
The civil societies have sought the court's direction to declare Thomas' appointment as illegal 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 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," it said.