CVC must quit

It is unfortunate that the government  continues to defend Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas even in the face of persistent demands that he resign or is advised to step down. Thomas himself has tried to defend himself, explaining that the charges against him are without basis. But his explanation cannot be taken at face value because it is the word of an accused who is yet to be proved innocent by the due process of law. It is not just the opposition parties and the media that maintain he should not continue in the position. Some parties in the UPA have also said that his continuance as the CVC is untenable. The supreme court has more than once questioned his suitability to supervise the CBI investigations into the 2G spectrum case as he himself was the telecom secretary before his appointment as the CVC.

The response of the government and Thomas that he will recuse himself from the spectrum allocation probe is ingenious. It is in fact an admission of his lack of credentials and ineligibility for the position. It lowers the stature of the office, morally weakens it and sets a bad precedent in dealing with issues of corruption and misconduct. It amounts to saying that a minister, who holds two portfolios and is facing charges relating to his decisions in one of them, can continue to hold his other portfolio. The CVC’s position has integrated functions and it cannot be viewed in parts. He is the  vigilance commissioner and there cannot be a division of his duties and responsibilities. And personal integrity and credibility are not divisible qualities, good in parts and needed in the discharge of some functions of an office. Even after recusing himself from the investigation, Thomas can be questioned by the CBI or summoned by the supreme court to explain his defence of the 2G spectrum allocation. Will that in any way enhance the prestige of the office?

Thomas may be innocent but till the time it is proved that he is not involved, by way of commission or omission, in the irregularities relating to the import of palmolein by the Kerala government in 1991 or the allocation of spectrum by the telecom ministry, he is not fit to continue as the CVC. Public perception of personal uprightness is very important for people holding high offices. Thomas does not measure up to the standards demanded of the CVC’s office.