The saga of the appointment of P.J. Thomas as central vigilance commissioner on September 7, 2010, has wound the government up in knots as it faces probing questions. This is entirely its own fault. Since the appointment turned into a controversy, government spokesmen at the highest levels have given the appearance of stalling and giving precedence to technicality over substance. The question whether the three-member appointment committee consisting of the Prime Minister, home minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha was officially made aware by the department of personnel and training that Mr Thomas had been chargesheeted in Kerala’s controversial palmolein case, and that the Kerala government had indeed sanctioned his prosecution, is an important one. Attorney-general Goolam E. Vahnavati told the Supreme Court that these pieces of vital information were not placed before the appointment committee when it met to take a view. By implication this means that were the appointing authority aware, Mr Thomas would not have been made CVC. How did it come about that significant material was not placed before such an eminent committee, or was it withheld? These questions open a can of worms and have serious implications for the manner in which the government functions. The facts will be established when the record is perused by the Supreme Court. But it is easy to see that even if the attorney-general is shown to be right, and the papers before the appointing authority did not include vital information which would impact Mr Thomas’ selection, it was common knowledge that the Kerala cadre IAS officer had been dragged into a corruption scandal while serving in the state as civil supplies secretary.
Ordinary common sense suggests this was strong ground for Mr Thomas’ exclusion from the panel of three shortlisted for CVC. Even now there is time for the government to extricate itself from the hole it has dug for itself. All it needs to do is to summon the nerve to say it was wrong, and rescind the appointment by taking the plea that the appointment process was vitiated as relevant material needed to judge a candidate’s impeccability was absent from consideration. The country’s highest court has hinted as much. Many might then still make allowance for the administration and say it had the good sense to own up a mistake and withdraw. Of course, such an option will not be available if the attorney-general is proved to be mistaken on facts. Then the present CVC will have to go and the government would be deprived of the cushion of having some saving grace.
In Kerala, Mr Thomas is seen as an upright officer. Many might agree with his defence that he has been a victim of vendetta politics between the Congress and the CPI(M) in Kerala. (The CPI-Mdid act strangely — first by dragging him into the palmolein case, then elevating him to chief secretary when it came to power in Kerala, and later allowing his prosecution). It is true that Mr Thomas did obtain a clearance from the then CVC. This paved the way for his appointment as telecom secretary at the Centre. But none of this means that he should be CVC, a constitutional authority tasked with looking at governmental corruption and with the power to issue directions to the CBI. Mr Thomas was obliged to recuse himself from the 2G spectrum scam for he was himself telecom secretary when alleged irregularities of enormous proportions occurred in that department. How can the chief watchdog against corruption be a person at whom anyone facing trial can point a finger? Ideally, Mr Thomas should resign on his own right away. Only if he is discharged in the palmolein case can he be considered for high constitutional positions.