Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion

The Supreme Court (SC) has been of late seized of cases relating to alleged corruption in the allocation of 2G spectrum and appointment of PJ Thomas as chief vigilance commissioner (CVC).

While the SC decision on the matters is anxiously awaited, it was surprising to see the Union government seeking to rubbish the challenge to the charge-sheeted Thomas. The nonchalant government said “impeccable integrity”, which Thomas allegedly lacks, could not be the only criterion for making an appointment to the high constitutional position of CVC.

If this pious quality was made the basic criterion, government counsel told a bench headed by chief justice SH Kapadia, who believes in “zero tolerance” to corruption, all judicial and constitutional appointments would be open to question.

It’s not known whether it was a casual remark made in the heat of the moment, but it surely has gained strength after the SC recently highlighted the rot in the Allahabad high court.

No doubt it’s trite that everyone is innocent unless found guilty. But in making certain appointments, including that of judges, suspicion is good enough to discredit dispensation. Why not? Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. 

If the electorate is held responsible for sending the corrupt to parliament, why not blame the SC collegium for making questionable higher judicial appointments?

Selection of junior judges by a group of seniors has been tested for some years now. It was felt that the collegium system should do away with the belief that the essential quality to become a judge is to “know the law minister”, rather than to “know the law”.

While conceiving the collegium system in the ‘90s, the SC had emphasised on “unimpeachable integrity alone” as the basic quality of a judge.

“It’s important so that no doubtful person gains entry,” former chief justice JS Verma had said.
Would the political and judicial collegiums take note?