<p>Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Thomas, told a Bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia that the election law allowed even convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in office pending their appeals. He submitted that 153 out of 543 MPs have criminal cases pending against them.<br /><br />The counsel claimed once again that the appointment of Thomas was not vitiated only because of pending chargesheet against him. He also submitted that the appointment could not be put to judicial review. The court, however, reminded, “Today on account of judicial review, we can even strike down Constitutional amendments.”<br /><br />Justice Kapadia asked "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." The counsel responded by submitting that there was no expressed provision under the CVC Act to disqualify a person due to the pending chargesheet.<br /><br />Attorney General G E Vahanvati submitted that the entire file of the bureaucrat was not placed before the high-powered panel headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that decided his appointment.<br /><br />The Supreme Court asked him to clarify whether the entire file was circulated along with the agenda paper among the appointing authority. He replied that he was not "personally aware" as to what was circulated among the members when the agenda paper was placed before them.<br /><br />The Bench also asked him whether the material with regard to sanction granted for Thomas' prosecution in 1999 was placed before the panel.<br /><br />“With the agenda papers, it should have been placed before the members," the Court asked.<br /><br />“Why the relevant materials were not circulated and what was circulated I am not in a position to say," the Attorney General said while maintaining that there was any violation of the procedure in the appointment of Thomas as CVC.<br /><br />Venugopal then intervened to say that these aspects cannot make Thomas to suffer. “Don't you think that the agenda paper is supposed to contain all the information and if the agenda is silent they (members of panel) can ask for the relevant materials. Why was the most relevant material not accompanying the agenda papers. This is what is bothering us," the Bench said. <br /><br />The Court is hearing a public interest litigation filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and some eminent persons including former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh challenging appointment of Thomas as CVC on September 7 last year.<br /><br />According to them, Thomas could not be considered as a person of “impeccable integrity” as a charge sheet against him was filed in the Palmolein import scam that took place during his stint as secretary in the Kerala’s Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies. <br /><br />The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and are likely to resume on Thursday.<br /></p>
<p>Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Thomas, told a Bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia that the election law allowed even convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in office pending their appeals. He submitted that 153 out of 543 MPs have criminal cases pending against them.<br /><br />The counsel claimed once again that the appointment of Thomas was not vitiated only because of pending chargesheet against him. He also submitted that the appointment could not be put to judicial review. The court, however, reminded, “Today on account of judicial review, we can even strike down Constitutional amendments.”<br /><br />Justice Kapadia asked "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." The counsel responded by submitting that there was no expressed provision under the CVC Act to disqualify a person due to the pending chargesheet.<br /><br />Attorney General G E Vahanvati submitted that the entire file of the bureaucrat was not placed before the high-powered panel headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that decided his appointment.<br /><br />The Supreme Court asked him to clarify whether the entire file was circulated along with the agenda paper among the appointing authority. He replied that he was not "personally aware" as to what was circulated among the members when the agenda paper was placed before them.<br /><br />The Bench also asked him whether the material with regard to sanction granted for Thomas' prosecution in 1999 was placed before the panel.<br /><br />“With the agenda papers, it should have been placed before the members," the Court asked.<br /><br />“Why the relevant materials were not circulated and what was circulated I am not in a position to say," the Attorney General said while maintaining that there was any violation of the procedure in the appointment of Thomas as CVC.<br /><br />Venugopal then intervened to say that these aspects cannot make Thomas to suffer. “Don't you think that the agenda paper is supposed to contain all the information and if the agenda is silent they (members of panel) can ask for the relevant materials. Why was the most relevant material not accompanying the agenda papers. This is what is bothering us," the Bench said. <br /><br />The Court is hearing a public interest litigation filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and some eminent persons including former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh challenging appointment of Thomas as CVC on September 7 last year.<br /><br />According to them, Thomas could not be considered as a person of “impeccable integrity” as a charge sheet against him was filed in the Palmolein import scam that took place during his stint as secretary in the Kerala’s Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies. <br /><br />The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and are likely to resume on Thursday.<br /></p>
