SC questions Thomas' appointment as CVC

A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia today cast doubts on the wisdom of choosing P J Thomas as chief vigilance commissioner (CVC) when he faces charges of corruption in the palmolein import case and in telecom irregularities.

Attorney-General G E Vahanvati responded by submitting that if impeccable integrity was the criteria to select persons to sensitive posts, all judicial and constitutional appointments would also be open to scrutiny.

The appointment of Thomas has been challenged in two public interest petitions, one by former chief election commissioner J M Lyngdoh. The court had last week sought the file dealing with his selection to verify that procedures have been followed.

The file was brought in a sealed cover and given to the judges today. The bench, which included Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, said they would study the documents and hear the petition two weeks later.

During the hearing, the judges wondered how Thomas, who had criminal cases pending against him and was subjected to CBI investigations, could function as CVC. He might be embarrassed by the investigations.

Thomas figures in the charge-sheet filed in Kerala in a palmolein import case.

The attorney-general submitted that the procedure for selection had been followed, that there was no involvement of Thomas in the palmolein case, and sanction to prosecute him had not been processed.

The judges asked: “How will you function as CVC? In every case, the CBI has to report to him. Under the service jurisprudence, a person cannot even be considered for promotions when a charge-sheet is pending against him.”

Vahanvati said one of the petitioners, Lyngdoh, had himself prepared Thomas’ ACR, stating that his integrity was beyond doubt.

In its petition, the Centre for Public Interest Litigation has alleged, “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 the Opposition was forced to record her dissent. Hence, her presence was rendered meaningless in the appointment.”