After going through the files relating to the appointment of chief vigilance commissioner P.J. Thomas, the Supreme Court on Monday decided to examine the “validity” of the Centre’s order on his selection despite his name figuring in the chargesheet in Kerala’s palmolien import scam case and while he also faced allegations of a “coverup” in the 2G spectrum scam as telecom secretary.

Apparently finding substance in a set of petitions challenging Mr Thomas’ appointment after examining the government’s “confidential files” in the backdrop of such serious allegations against him, a bench comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar issued notices to the Centre as well as the CVC seeking their replies by January 27, when the case will be taken up for final hearing.
Though attorney-general Goolam E. Vahnvati was on Monday supposed to respond to the court’s November 22 direction to obtain clear “instructions” from the government on how Mr Thomas would be able to function effectively as the country’s principal anti-corruption watchdog in such a background, but the bench gave him hardly any opportunity to make a statement.
As the case was taken up, the CJI straightaway said: “We have gone through the files. We have to put it (the matter of Mr Thomas’ appointment) for final hearing.”
When Mr Vahanvati pointed out that notices had to be issued, the bench said the court would do so. The CJI then dictated a brief order issuing notices to the government and to Mr Thomas.
The A-G said he could receive the notice only on the government’s behalf and not on behalf of Mr Thomas, the bench ordered that the same be served on him “dasti (personally)”.
Before accepting the notice on the government’s behalf, the A-G said: “I can’t say anything at this stage... I need to go through the files.”
“Yes. You can go through the files,” the CJI said, directing that these documents, submitted by the Centre in a sealed cover on November 22, be returned to the A-G.
While advocate Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the petitioners (NGO Centre for PILs and some prominent citizens led by former chief election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh) who had challenged Mr Thomas’ appointment, sought an early hearing, the CJI said that since Mr Thomas had to file a reply, reasonable time had to be given to him.
“All the parties have to complete their pleadings before January 27,” said the CJI, making it clear that the case would be put up for argument on that day.
An additional affidavit filed by the NGO said Mr Thomas, “who took over as secretary, department of telecom, after the allotment of 2G spectrum, was involved in the ‘coverup’ of the scam, as has already been shown in the main petition.” Mr Thomas, who is facing tremendous pressure in the backdrop of daily media speculation about his imminent resignation, said while reacting to the Supreme Court decision that he saw it as an “opportunity to present his case before the court”. Saying that he would place all the facts before the court in an affidavit, he said: “I am told the Supreme Court has issued a notice. I am glad the court has given me an opportunity to present my case... This will be done in the form of a counter-affidavit. All details will be submitted.”
Though the order is being seen as a reprieve for the government for the time being, particularly as it is facing daily embarrassment amid speculation about Mr Thomas’ resignation, the Centre has a tough job ahead in justifying his selection.
This is particularly so as Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj, one of the members of the three-member CVC selection panel, along with the Prime Minister and home minister, had registered her “strong resentment” about Mr Thomas’ choice, while Supreme Court guidelines state that the selection should “preferably” be with unanimity among all members.