The CVC's counsel KK Venugopal today put forward arguments saying that even under electoral law convicted MPs and MLAs continue in their office pending their appeal against conviction in criminal cases.
Embattled CVC PJ Thomas today told the Supreme Court that his appointment as central vigilance commissioner cannot be subject to judicial review and that it does not not get vitiated merely because of chargesheet pending against him in a corruption case.
Thomas's counsel KK Venugopal today put forward arguments saying that even under electoral law convicted MPs and MLAs continue in their office pending their appeal against conviction in criminal cases.
However, a Bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia, said "if there is a fact of conviction and if a person is appointed, can we say there can be no judicial review of the appointment.
"Today on account of judicial review, we can even strike down Constitutional amendments."
Venugopal argued that the appointment does not get vitiated merely because of the pending chargesheet against the official as there is no express provision in the CVC Act to disqualify a person on such ground.
He was responding to the question whether the decision on Thomas' appointment is not vitiated by the non-circulation of the relevant materials like the pending chargesheet and grant of sanction by the Kerala Government in 1999 for his prosecution.
Venugopal said since the statute qualifies and disqualifies the eligibility and suitability of the person to be appointed as CVC, the selection is based on the subjective satisfaction of appointing authority.
Government also told the court that the entire file of controversial Thomas was not placed before the members of the high-powered panel headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh which decided the the appointment.
Attorney general GE Vahanvati replied in negative to a query from the Bench which wanted to know "was the entire file circulated along with the agenda paper among the members who are appointing authority".
Vahanvati, however, said he was not personally aware what transpired, what the panel said, what they did and what was circulated between the members when the agenda paper was placed before them.
He replied by saying "no" when the Bench wanted to know, was the material relating to the sanction granted for Thomas' prosecution in 1999 placed before the panel.
){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}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}