Causing further embarrassment to the government, CVC P.J. Thomas took a new stance in the Supreme Court on Monday and questioned the competence of MPs facing serious criminal charges to legislate for the country whereas he merely faced a chargesheet in Kerala’s “politically motivated” palmolein import case.
Responding to the apex court’s queries on whether the pendency of the chargesheet was enough to strike down the appointment of Mr Thomas, his counsel, senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, replied in the negative, stating there was nothing in the CVC Act to disqualify a person for the post vigilance commissioner or CVC only because a case was pending against him.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia asked that if a public servant was convicted in a case, and the government still thought he was a “suitable person” for the job, could not the appointment be struck down by the court, Mr Venugopal brought in the instance of MPs and MLAs who are not disqualified even on conviction if the sentence is less than two years.
“If the conviction is under the SC or ST Act, and the sentence is even for a day, then any public servant convicted is disqualified. But there are several other laws where a sentence up to one year or more and less than two years will not attract disqualification (for MPs and MLAs),” Mr Venugopal said, citing the relevant provision of the Representation of the People Act.
“Out of 543 MPs (Lok Sabha), 153 MPs are facing criminal charges. Fifty-four MPs are facing charges of very serious nature, including murder. But, unfortunately, they are making laws for us,” Mr Venugopal alleged while pointing out that several MPs, who faced even murder charges, had become ministers at the Centre in the past.
Mr Thomas’ lawyer made this distinction in a bid to emphasise that a mere chargesheet did not disqualify his client from the post under the CVC Act as it was a “conscious decision” of the appointing committee despite it being aware that a case was pending against him.
It has now been made clear by home minister P. Chidambaram in his statement that the issue of a chargesheet was before the selection committee comprising the PM, the home minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Venugopal argued.
However, the CJI told Mr Venugopal: “We are not asking about the situation. We are concerned only about the law. If a person is convicted in a case still the court will say hands off the matter if the law does not say so specifically,” the CJI said, adding this was important as “we want to lay down the law for the future”.
Mr Venugopal said when there was no provision in the CVC Act making a chargesheeted person ineligible, any order by the court on his “suitability” for the post would be contrary to the provision of the legislation. “If the issue of suitability was allowed to be introduced by way of judicial verdict, then it would open a Pandora’s box as all executive appointments would become subject to various objective factors and judicial interference would amount to introducing a new provision in the law, which does not exist,” the senior counsel argued, pointing out that overriding the power of legislature by way of judicial intervention would set a dangerous trend.
Any constitutional and statutory appointment could only be struck down if it was in contravention of the provisions of the law and there was gross “mala fide” in making such appointments, Mr Venugopal said. The hearing was adjourned to Thursday.