JOIN USSC steps in to check and balance
The Chief Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas has remained in the firing line of the Supreme Court even after arguing that out of 543 MPs, 153 were facing serious charges while he faced only a chargesheet.
He even went to the extent of suggesting that his appointment should not be put to judicial review. The three-judge Bench, which has reserved its verdict in the PIL challenging his appointment, however, reminded him of the immense power vested in the apex court to strike down anything which goes against the very guiding principles of the Constitution.
“Today on account of judicial review, we can even strike down Constitutional amendments 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 Court said. The Bench also made its intention clear by declaring that it intends to lay down guidelines for future appointments.
The Court kept putting posers to the Government as well by questioning the very clearance given to Thomas by the CVC in 2007-08 for being appointed as Secretary and his subsequent empanelment for the post of CVC. The Bench pertinently hit at the moral aspect of the issue as well. “Does it not, in normal course, be a stigma when a chargesheet is filed against an officer… Is the criterion of impeccable integrity applied when there is a stigma of chargesheet?” the Court asked.
The Government, on the other hand, kept saying that there were no guidelines or rules for appointment of CVC. Attorney General G E Vahanvati termed it as “grey area”. Senior Advocate K K Venugopal, who defended Thomas, called him “a victim of a clash between two political parties”. He also relied upon the electoral law to bring home the point that merely filing a chargesheet in a criminal or corruption case against a person does not disqualify him from contesting elections. He contended that a person can be rendered ineligible to contest only after his conviction in the case. Thomas’ counsel also told the court that the former bureaucrat was only facing a chargesheet.
As the hearing began in the PIL filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), the Bench had wondered as to how Thomas would function as CVC in view of the chargesheet against him. “Let us proceed on assumption that at every stage there will be allegations that you should not process a file as CVC as you are accused in a criminal case. How will you function as CVC?” the Court had asked.
It had also observed “under the service jurisprudence, a person cannot even be considered for promotions when a chargesheet is pending against him.” However, the Government unequivocally defended its decision to appoint Thomas as CVC in the apex court. The matter would probably be laid to rest only with the pronouncement of verdict by the Supreme Court.
