Reported By:
| Edited By: Rakesh Bhatnagar |Source: DNA |Updated: Mar 06, 2011, 11:48 PM IST
A company is known by the men it keeps. That’s possibly the message the Supreme Court (SC) delivered last week when it scrapped the appointment of the charge-sheeted PJ Thomas as head of central vigilance commission (CVC), the integrity institution set up by parliament in 2003.
Thomas did not take the defence akin to tainted politicians, who say mere filing of a charge sheet does not prove guilt. That’s the reasoning that has helped 153 charge-sheeted persons — 28.3% of lawmakers so far — enter parliament.
It’s an irony that former law minister Shanti Bhushan’s argument that law-breakers can’t be allowed to become lawmakers has so far fallen on deaf ears.
In fact what the articulate lawyer has been asserting is what SC has also held in the Thomas case.
There was no fault in the decision taken by the high-powered committee (HPC) to recommend Thomas’ name for CVC, but it undoubtedly sacrificed sacred institutional integrity.
That an institution is far above an individual is what the top court has maintained. HPC recommended Thomas’ name on the basis of his resume or personal integrity of empanelled officers but ignored institutional integrity.
CVC is an institution which is vested with the power to supervise vigilance administration. It controls the politically-pliable CBI and other central investigating agencies. Whether CVC has so far been able to uphold its majesty is debatable, though it enjoys autonomy and insulation from external influences.
It is expected of a body that’s constituted by parliament, such as CVC, to weigh the pros and cons of its selection. If the selection adversely affects institutional competency and functioning, it is the duty of HPC not to recommend such a candidate.
However, HPC ignored this vital aspect. Institutional integrity of an autonomous body has to be kept in mind while recommending a candidate. Whether the incumbent would or would not be able to function? Whether the working of the institution would suffer? If so, would it not be the duty of HPC not to recommend the person.
If Thomas has been found unsuitable for CVC, there’s no justification for tolerating charge-sheeted lawmakers in the chambers of the world’s biggest parliamentary democracy. Institutional integrity of parliament is no less.
