Virtually defending the controversial appointment of Mr P.J. Thomas as central vigilance commissioner, for which the government has faced considerable flak, Union home minister P. Chidambaram said on Monday that the selection committee comprising him, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj had discussed the pending palmolein case against Mr Thomas before he had been named CVC.
It was in September last year that the three-member panel had selected Mr Thomas as CVC. Ms Swaraj, however, had recorded her dissent on the choice. Mr Chidambaram, addressing a press conference Monday, parried questions on whether a “chargesheeted” person should have been appointed CVC or if such appointments should be by “consensus”, saying the matter was sub judice.
The man in the eye of the storm, Mr Thomas, also sidestepped questions on his continuance in office, saying he was still the CVC. “I am still the CVC. The matter is in court. So no comment,” Mr Thomas told reporters.
Mr Chidambaram said he was “happy” to agree with Ms Swaraj in that the committee had discussed the issue of a pending case against Mr Thomas. “We did discuss the names on the panel. In fact, the bulk of the time was regarding P.J. Thomas and the palmolein case. She (Swaraj) made her points, the other members (PM and home minister) of the committee made their points.”
Elaborating on the meeting, Mr Chidambaram said: “There could not have been a discussion for several minutes without bringing these facts before the committee. There could not have been a disagreement without a discussion.”
Referring to a statement by the attorney-general before the Supreme Court that the papers and files relating to the case against Mr Thomas were not “circulated” during the meeting, Mr Chidambaram said: “It was never stated (by the A-G) that there was no discussion on the case against Thomas.” When asked how the government could appoint a “corrupt” man facing a chargesheet as CVC, Mr Chidambaram shot back: “I respect your right to hold a point of view. Similarly, you should also respect our point of view. The matter is actively sub judice.”
Earlier, Mr Chidambaram prefaced his reply to questions on Mr Thomas, saying he was “reluctant” to answer it because the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. “I am horrified that cases that are being actively heard by the courts of law are being discussed widely by political leaders and the media. I am disappointed that the courts are not pulling up people. I am answering (this question) reluctantly and with a great sense of disappointment,” he said.