Attorney general Goolam E Vahanvati told the Supreme Court that the prime minister-headed three-member panel that chose Thomas was not aware of his involvement in the Palmolein oil scam in Kerala.
In trying to defend PJ Thomas, the Centre has ended up putting his position as chief vigilance commissioner (CVC) in jeopardy.
Defending the former telecom secretary’s appointment at the helm of the central vigilance commission, attorney general Goolam E Vahanvati told the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday that the prime minister (PM)-headed three-member panel that chose Thomas was not aware of his involvement in the Palmolein oil scam in Kerala.
“The bio-data did not reflect this aspect before the committee,” he told a bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia.
SC was hearing a petition filed by NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), which has sought quashing of the appointment.
Panel member and leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj had vociferously objected to Thomas, but PM and the panel’s third member, the home minister, ignored her protest.
An analyst said the government’s admission that it wasn’t aware of the involvement of Thomas in a scam gave impetus to CPIL’s challenge.
The bench had earlier wondered how a man charge-sheeted in a corruption case could head a corruption watchdog.
“We are not going into the merits of the case. We want to know whether the material pertaining to the charge sheet and the sanction was brought before the committee or not,” it asked the government.
Concerned at the malaise of corruption in public life, SC also wanted to know if correct procedure was followed in the appointment. “How many people were in the zone of selection?” the judges said and sought details of the empanelment.
CPIL counsel Prashant Bhushan said, “How will Thomas function as CVC when a sword is hanging over his head?”
In his affidavit, the “honest” Thomas has claimed he is a victim of politics. But CPIL has said he can’t hold the post on two counts — conflict of interest as he was telecom secretary when the 2G scam took place and second, he was illegally appointed.
It reminded SC of its judgment in 2005 that reputation and integrity of an appointee are relevant factors for a public office and that appointments to sensitive positions should be done in a transparent manner giving no scope for grievance.
){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}