Supreme court questions CVC role in 2G probe

Says it will be difficult for Thomas to objectively supervise.

The Supreme Court today questioned the tenability of Chief Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas supervising the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the 2G scam.

The bench of justices G S Singhvi and Ashok Kumar Ganguly said Thomas, who was the then telecom secretary, will have difficulty in objectively monitoring the investigations.

Since the CBI functions under the overall supervision of the CVC, it would be difficult for Thomas to objectively monitor the investigations, the court observed.

“He had justified the actions which are being subject to scrutiny by this court and CBI. It would be difficult for him to objectively supervise,” the bench observed.

The bench was hearing a petition by Centre for Public Interest Litigation expressing concern over safe custody of the Niira Radia tapes – reportedly exposing a nexus between influential public figures in former telecom minister A Raja’s appointment – because of its sensitive nature. The petioners wanted the court to take custody of the tapes.

The bench directed Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to consult the government and come back with a reply on Wednesday. The Solicitor General said he would.

The hearing focused on corruption. The judges remarked that public life in the country had become corrupt and the Ganga is no longer sacred; similarly the stink of corruption had spoilt the environment of Indian polity.

Last week, the chief justice had also pointed out the Thomas anomaly while hearing another petition moved before the apex court. That petition is still pending.

Senior counsel K K Venugopal, appearing for CBI, cited the Central Vigilance Act to note there was a provision to allow one of the Vigilance Commissioners to take over the functions of the CVC. This could be done whenever a contingency arose wherein it became difficult for the incumbent CVC to function for any reason.

Counsel for the Centre for PIL, Prashant Bhushan, said he had no objection to such a proposal, as one of the Vigilance Commissioners, R Shreekumar, a former DGP from Karnataka, “enjoys a good reputation”. However, he said the court should appoint another officer with unimpeachable integrity to ensure a fair supervision of the investigation.

Vengugopal objected to this proposal. He said the court can monitor but no outside person should be superimposed to do the job. Subramanium also expressed his reservations on the proposal.

Also read:  November 23: SC questions Thomas’ appointment as CVC