At a time when UPA-2 finds itself in political difficulty following revelations over the 2G spectrum allocations, the Supreme Court has embarrassed the Manmohan Singh government by questioning its decision to appoint P.J. Thomas as chief vigilance commissioner two months ago, although it appears the government did so in good faith. From the arguments advanced by attorney-general Goolam E. Vahanvati in the court on Monday, the government appeared to believe it had the right man for the job, even though his name figures in a chargesheet filed in Kerala in 2000 as an accused in a case of import of palmolein. There is an impression that the case has not moved forward, or been withdrawn by the state in the past 10 years, for reasons that appear partly technical, and partly an attempt on the part of the CPI(M) — now in power in the state — to embarrass the Congress during whose tenure the import was made. Nevertheless, the Leftist administration did not hesitate to appoint Mr Thomas as state chief secretary, possibly signalling that they did not see him as being corrupt. The attorney-general has also argued that there was no case involving the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr Thomas. He noted that when the then chief secretary was empanelled to become parliamentary affairs secretary at the Centre, his name was cleared by the CVC of the time. The final point in Mr Vahanvati’s brief is that former chief election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh had once noted in an annual confidential report on Mr Thomas’ performance that he possessed “integrity beyond doubt”. The irony is that the questioning of Mr Thomas’ appointment as the new CVC has come in a pubic interest litigation case filed by Mr Lyngdoh and others.
To be fair, the first instance we should perhaps suspend judgment on Mr Thomas’ presumed guilt. We should also hope that the system is made to improve so that no case is permitted to drag out so long. This perverts the course of justice. All the same, given the totality of circumstances, it is clear as day that appointing Mr Thomas to the sensitive position of CVC has been singularly unwise. The most important reason is suggested by the key question posed by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia. The CJI has maintained quite appropriately that since the CVC remains an accused in a listed case, he will not be in a position to issue notice to a party in matters brought before him, rendering him effectively “non-functional”. This makes eminent sense. It is a pity that the attorney-general did not grasp this, especially when he is dealing with as sensitive a constitutional appointment as that of the CVC, whose role is decide corruption matters concerning senior officials.
To make matters worse, the attorney-general argued with uncommon foolishness that if the idea of “impeccable integrity” were to be strictly adopted, key judicial appointments might come under scrutiny. This would sound like a threat to most people. No government law officer must be permitted to do this. Indeed, the attorney-general must be asked why the Indian citizen must not aspire to have only those of “impeccable integrity” holding top administrative and constitutional positions. Besides, Mr Thomas was telecom secretary when the controversial 2G spectrum allotment decisions were in the works. And that does not look like a pretty thing today. This is among the reasons why the BJP’s Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition, had opposed Mr Thomas’ appointment. The CVC is chosen by a troika comprising the Prime Minister, Union home minister and the Leader of the Opposition. This lends the institution greater weight as it denotes a consensus within the parliamentary system in dealing with issues of probity. Overlooking Ms Swaraj’s objections clearly looks like a mistake and amounts to the disregard of a well-conceived institution.