The Supreme Court on Monday granted permission to VJ Thomas to present his case before the apex court on the petition questioning his appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC).
The Supreme Court on Monday granted permission to VJ Thomas to present his case before the apex court on the petition questioning his appointment as central vigilance commissioner (CVC).
The apex court also issued notices to Thomas and the government on the basis of a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) that challenges the CVC’s appointment on three grounds.
The first is that he is charge-sheeted in the palmolein oil export scam in Kerala. Also, he was secretary with the department of telecommunication and so, privy to the 2G spectrum allocations by former telecom minister A Raja. The last objection is that the leader of opposition did not concur with the choice made by the prime minister and home minister.
A bench of chief justices SH Kapadia and justices KS Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar adjourned the hearing till January 27.
The bench examined a file related to Thomas’s appointment apart from a document, which included remarks by leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj, a member of the selection panel.
She had reportedly strongly objected Thomas’s appointment, saying the CVC must be a person of impeccable integrity.
Attorney-general Goolam E Vahanvati had during the last hearing said if impeccable integrity was to be the dominant criteria, all judicial and constitutional appointments will be open to questioning. Vahanvati on Monday declined to accept the notice on behalf of Thomas, saying he is appearing for the Union of India, a co-respondent.
The CPIL’s petition says that when the apex court and Parliament held that the CVC would be selected by a three-member committee, including the leader of the opposition, it was obvious that the panel would decide unanimously or by consensus.
“Nowhere was it said that the committee would decide by majority,” Prashant Bhushan, CPIL’s lawyer, said.
The process becomes meaningless if the leader of opposition’s views are ignored and not given due importance, he said. Bhushan also said that a CVC cannot be removed; he can be impeached. But the court can remove a CVC chief by holding his appointment unconstitutional, arbitrary and mala fide.
Thomas, meanwhile, said he was glad that the Supreme Court has given him an opportunity to present his case.
){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}