Chief Vigilance Commissioner P.J. Thomas, who was elevated to his present position although he remains charge-sheeted in a corruption case in Kerala when he was food secretary in the state, has asked some searching questions of our political system after being pilloried by politicians for over two months and being declared unfit by

them for his present job since he carried a taint. The riposte by Mr Thomas, made in the Supreme Court in the course of his arguments in the corruption matter pertaining to him, does raise valid questions. However, it is not clear what bearing his pithy observations have on the specific case concerning his appointment to the high office of CVC whose job it is to deal with corruption in government.
The nub of the CVC’s arguments is that although a significant number of our MPs have been chargesheeted in criminal cases, and many even convicted for terms running up to two years, they continue to make laws for the country. Some facing the charge of murder have been ministers at the Centre. The point is well taken. Apparently Mr Thomas’ lawyer made these points to emphasise that being chargesheeted did not automatically disqualify his client from the post of CVC.
Some might regard this line of argument as the pot calling the kettle black. However, only earlier this month the Chief Election Commissioner, on a visit to Lucknow, made an appeal to not allow chargesheeted persons to contest elections for state Assemblies or Parliament. The CEC is entirely correct (as is the implied argument made in the apex court by Mr Thomas’ counsel). Indeed, the suggestion made by the CEC may be deemed to be a basic requirement for cleaning up our system which has been mired in corruption and mis-governance at every level for decades. The points made by the CEC had in the past been made by others as well. But this line of thinking does not appear to have impressed our political class much. There has been a conspicuous reluctance on its part to enact legislation that would disqualify chargesheeted persons from running for Assembly or Parliament, although everyone can see this is a crying need. And yet, for all that, this point being made in court on Mr Thomas’ behalf amounts to sophistry.
It can be no one’s case at the moment that the present CVC is a corrupt man. That point is still to be proved. In fact, up and down the Kerala administration Mr Thomas is viewed as a man of integrity who has been caught in political crossfire. None of this matters, however. What matters is whether, given the sensitive nature of the CVC’s job, Mr Thomas would be able to preside over the business of unravelling corruption cases without a defendant pointing a finger at him for being chargesheeted himself and thus being unfit to preside over the destiny of others. This was pointed out by the Chief Justice of India several weeks ago. To go a step further, only someone who is seen as moral, ethical and clean by all comers can effectively discharge the function of determining whether those brought before him are corrupt or clean. It is for this reason that Mr Thomas has had to recuse himself from considering the 2G spectrum case, for fingers would have been pointed as he was telecom secretary during a part of the period now being investigated. We know that a large number of MPs, MLAs and ministers have a criminal background and the system merely winks at this phenomenon. But does India aspire to have in high office people about whom taint is suspected. Would we want a chargesheeted person as Chief Justice, President, or Prime Minister for instance?