With the Centre facing increasing flak over the appointment of central vigilance commissioner P.J. Thomas, Union law minister M. Veerappa Moily met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday evening to brief him on various options before the government on the matter. Sources said a decision on the CVC’s possible removal or replacement would be taken soon by the PMO.

Earlier in the day, the government told the Supreme Court that details of Mr Thomas being chargesheeted in a corruption case, pending sanction for prosecution, were not placed before the high-powered selection committee for the job. Ms Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a member of the committee, who had opposed Mr Thomas’ appointment, said she would file an affidavit in the court on the issue.
Mr Moily, speaking to this newspaper, refused to confirm what had transpired at his meeting with the Prime Minister. On Ms Swaraj’s move to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court on the subject, he said: “Let her file an affidavit. The government will respond to it.”
The government told the Supreme Court on Thursday that details of Mr Thomas being chargesheeted in a corruption case and pending sanction for prosecution were not placed before the high-powered committee headed by the Prime Minister. “The pendency of the chargesheet or the sanction was not before the committee. I am making a statement that these papers were not there. Nothing about the palmolein case was before the committee,” attorney-general Goolam E. Vahanvati told a bench comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapaidia and Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, which was examining the validity of Mr Thomas’ appointment after being chargesheeted in Kerala’s 1992-93 palmolein import scam case.
The attorney-general made the revelation after the court specifically asked him if the selection committee — comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and home minister P. Chidambaram — were given details about the pending case against Mr Thomas and also the question of sanction.
The CJI told the A-G that the court’s query assumed importance as it wanted to know if such information had vitiated the entire selection process. “We want to know how the panel of names (for selection of CVC) is prepared and who prepares it. Was the panel placed before the committee headed by the PM? How was the choice made by the committee... Whether the decision-making process has taken into consideration related factors that a chargesheet was pending against him and the issue of sanction was also pending,” the CJI told the A-G while asking him to produce the records in the post-lunch session.
When the A-G came with the records later, and read out from it how the selection was processed with information provided by the department of personnel and training (DoPT). The A-G said the DoPT did not send details about the pending case and sanction to the selection committee as the CVC had already given “vigilance clearance” about Mr Thomas before his selection in October 2010.
At that time Mr Prithviraj Chavan, now Maharashtra chief minister, was in charge of DoPT.
The A-G, however, despite this revelation, continued to defend the government’s decision, saying a pending chargesheet in a case should not be a reason to determine eligibility for appointment to the post of an officer who otherwise had a very good track record.
Mr Vahanvati said despite the chargesheet, Mr Thomas was appointed chief secretary by the Kerala government in 2007, and subsequently brought to the Centre in 2009 and appointed telecom secretary after the then CVC had given him “vigilance clearance”.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who has filed a PIL on behalf of an NGO and some prominent personalities, including former chief election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh, for quashing Mr Thomas’ appointment, also raised the issue of the alleged “coverup” of the 2G spectrum scam by him as telecom secretary.
In view of his role as telecom secretary in the 2G scam, the other bench monitoring the CBI probe in the case, had raised doubts about Mr Thomas’ “bona fides” to supervise the spectrum case as CVC. Mr Thomas eventually had to recuse himself from monitoring that matter, Mr Bhushan further noted.
The Supreme Court also raised the question of whether it was not prudent for the Prime Minister and home minister to record their reasons for rejecting the dissent note of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter.