The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the appointment of Mr P.J.Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner. His appointment was earlier approved by a committee headed by the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh.

Reacting to the development, the Prime Minister said he respected the apex court's ruling. Following the decision, the Law Minister, Mr M.Veerappa Moily, told reporters that “Mr Thomas had resigned. However, later, the counsel for Mr Thomas, Mr Wills Mathew, contradicted this and told a news agency that “Mr Thomas has not resigned. We have not even received the copy of the judgment. We have to go through the judgment …. After that we will think of the future course of action.”

The apex court Bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India Mr S.H. Kapadia and Justices Mr K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Mr Swatanter Kumar, said, “It is declared that the recommendation dated September 3, 2010 of the High Powered Committee (headed by the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh) recommending the name of Mr P.J. Thomas as CVC... is non-est in law (or will have no existence in the eye of law) and, consequently, the appointment of Mr P.J.Thomas as CVC is quashed.”

It said, “The institution (of CVC) is more important than individual(s).” The CVC is a statutory anti-corruption body and is responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI.

The court said in future, the candidates for the post of CVC should not be restricted to outstanding civil servants. Persons from other fields — including those with experience in finance, insurance, banking, law, vigilance and investigations — can also be considered, it said, adding that they must all be of impeccable integrity.

Pending case

The court noted that Mr Thomas (60) is an accused in a pending criminal case (known as the palmolein import case). It was alleged that during his tenure in the Kerala Government, Mr Thomas, along with others, caused losses to the exchequer in 1992 by importing palmolein at a higher price. The petitioner, NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, had also alleged that Mr Thomas allegedly played a big role in the cover-up of the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

The court said “institutional integrity is the primary consideration” which the committee was required to consider while recommending someone for the CVC's post.” But “this vital aspect has not been taken into account” by the committee while recommending Mr Thomas to the CVC's post.

The committee consisted of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister Mr P.Chidambaram and the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Sushma Swaraj, whose disagreement on the appointment was recorded by the committee, and then cleared by the majority.

The court said it does not find any merit in the petitioner's submission that the recommendation to appoint Mr Thomas as CVC stood vitiated as it was not a unanimous decision by the committee.

“Each of the members (of the committee) is presumed by the legislature to act in public interest. On the other hand, if veto power is given to one of the three Members, the working of the Act would become unworkable,” the court said.

However, the court clarified that its judgement should be strictly understood to be under judicial review of the legality of the PM-led panel's recommendation to appoint Mr Thomas as CVC.

PTI reports: The Government has said it will soon start the process of selecting a new CVC after it receives the apex court judgment.

comment COMMENT NOW