The Government on Thursday faced yet another day of searching questions in the Supreme Court over vigilance clearance given to P.J. Thomas, maintaining that the CVC cannot be the final authority in giving final clearance to an official facing corruption case.
The Court also said it would lay down guidelines for future appointment to the post of central vigilance commissioner.
"CVC cannot be the final authority," a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said while questioning the clearance given to Thomas by the CVC in 2007-08 for being appointed as secretary and subsequent empanelment for the post of CVC.
"CVC cannot say that the court might have applied its mind (while hearing the case) and can the commission say there is no merit in the case while giving clearance to an officer," said the Bench, which also comprised justices K. S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar.
The remarks of the Bench came after submissions were made by Attorney General G E Vahanvati, who said there was "no stigma" if a chargesheeted officer is considered for the post of CVC.
"The filing of a chargesheet is not a stigma," he said when the Bench asked him "does it not, in normal course, be a stigma when a chargesheet is filed against an officer".
Vahanvati made the submission while responding to various questions by the bench, which also sought his view on the criteria of impeccable integrity required for appointment as central vigilance commissioner.
"Impeccable integrity is an important requirement," he said.
However, when the Bench asked does the criterion of impeccable integrity apply when there is a stigma of chargesheet, the Attorney General said "this is an area of grey".
While Vahanvati was making the submissions, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the centre for public interest litigation, which has challenged appointment of Thomas as CVC, said various factors about the Palmolein import case were not before the CVC when it gave vigilance clearance to him.
The CVC had not taken into account the pending chargesheet, sanction for his prosecution by the state government, the case diary, the report of the committee of public undertaking in Kerala and the CAG report on the Palolein import while giving vigilance clearance to Thomas.
"The CVC gave clearance to Thomas only on the basis of the two-page note placed before it by the department of personnel and training," he said.
At the outset when it was informed by the Attorney General that there were no guidelines or rules for appointment of CVC, the Bench said "for future appointment we would lay down guidelines that there should be some procedure".