Raising questions about the controversial appointment of Thomas who is an accused in a criminal case, the SC had said yesterday that he as the CVC will himself feel embarrassed due to the pending case against him as in every case the CBI will be dealing with him.
Congress today refused to comment on the Supreme Court raising questions about the controversial appointment of PJ Thomas as the central vigilance commissioner, saying that the matter was sub-judice.
"It is not appropriate to make a comment on an issue, which is pending before the court. There is an issue on which the honourable Supreme Court has made a certain observation and the AG has given a reply to it. It's not proper for me to speak on the issue," party spokesperson Shakeel Ahmed said.
He was asked about the court observations as well as the subsequent response of attorney general GE Vahanvati.
Raising questions about the controversial appointment of Thomas who is an accused in a criminal case, the SC had said yesterday that he as the CVC will himself feel embarrassed due to the pending case against him as in every case the CBI will be dealing with him.
Thomas' name figures in the chargesheet filed in a vigilance court in Kerala in the palmolein import case which is due to come up again soon.
Thomas, till recently secretary in the Union telecom ministry which is at the centre of the 2G spectrum storm, was appointed CVC on September 7 this year by a three-member panel consisting of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P Chidambaram and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj. The BJP leader had opposed the appointment.
The court's posers regarding Thomas' appointment had prompted a sharp response from Vahanvati who said if the kind of allegations levelled against him are considered then all judicial appointments would be open to scrutiny. The AG said all procedures have been followed in the case of Thomas' appointment.
BJP, which had opposed appointment of PJ Thomas as the central vigilance commissioner claimed that its stand had been vindicated following Supreme Court's observation on his continuance.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=spacer}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}