The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the validity of CVC P.J. Thomas’ appointment indicating that it might lay down guidelines to fill the gaps in the CVC Act to ensure that no person with doubtful credential is ever selected to be the country’s watchdog against corruption.
The verdict was reserved after a marathon hearing stretching several weeks during which various revelations about alleged irregularities on the selection process came to the fore.
While Mr Thomas’ counsel K.K. Venugopal said as per the provisions of the CVC Act, Mr Thomas was not disqualified and even raised question whether the entire material was placed before the President when she finally signed the appointment order, attorney-general G.E. Vahanvati countered him saying, all the papers about his bio-data were placed before the President.
However, activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan sought quashing of Mr Thomas’ appointment, while listing several important issues, which the top court could consider for laying down the guidelines.
Mr Bhushan said a person facing chargesheet in any case, inquiry for official misconduct, disciplinary action for any moral turpitude, should be considered disqualified for the post. Besides, he emphasised on taking into account the guidelines laid down by the top court in Jain-Hawala case verdict making “impeachable integrity” as the basic criteria for appointment of the CVC.
Counsel for former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh, who also challenged Thomas’ appointment on the face of pending chargesheet against him in Kerala’s palmolein import scam case, cited the rules laid down for appointment of vigilance officers in various departments.
As per the rules a bureaucrat facing disciplinary action, inquiry, any vigilance probe, criminal case, debarred form promotion due to pending inquiry, is not considered for appointment as vigilance officer
“If such stringent rules are laid down for vigilance officers, why the same should not be extended for appointment of the CVC and the other two vigilance commissioners,” Lyngdoh in an affidavit stated while reminding that all vigilance officers have to report to the CVC.