Tweet
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre whether the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) gave clearance to P.J. Thomas, who has been chargesheeted in the Kerala palmolein import case, without conducting any enquiry to enable his appointment as Chief Secretary.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India S. H. Kapadia and Justices K. S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar is hearing a writ petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, challenging the appointment of Mr. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner.
Attorney-General G. E. Vahanvati said there were no standard procedures or guidelines for the preparation of a panel of names for appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. In the case of Mr. Thomas, the CVC had given clearance and on that basis he was appointed Chief Secretary.
The CJI asked the AG whether the government had prepared the panel for selection of the CVC by merely downloading biodata of the empanelled officers from their websites or by going into their service files. The AG replied: “Once a person is appointed Secretary on clearance by the CVC, he can be considered for empanelment and no further inquiry is required.”
The CJI then asked “whether the fact of charge sheet/sanction by the Kerala government and the Kerala High Court judgment refusing to allow the palmolein case to be closed were placed before the CVC.”
The CJI further asked: “As per the Vineet Narain judgment, the CVC has to be a person of impeccable integrity as he has to remain independent, impartial, free and fair and uninfluenced by political executives. Can you [the government] say Mr. Thomas, facing a charge sheet, will come under the category of impeccable integrity and should we not read into the provisions of the CVC Act to fill the gap in the law?”
The AG said: “There is a clear distinction between eligibility and suitability. Eligibility goes to the conditions for appointment, whereas suitability is the ability of the person to discharge the responsibilities of that office.”
'No case of conspiracy'
Mr. Vahanvati pointed out that when the CVC gave its clearance it had clearly stated that no case of conspiracy was made out against Mr. Thomas.
This prompted Justice Swatanter Kumar to ask the AG, “Can the CVC travel beyond its jurisdiction and go into realm of judicial review? How can the CVC say that there is no merit in the case while giving clearance to an officer?”
When Justice Radhakrishnan wanted to know whether “filing of a charge sheet was not a stigma, and further, is that stigma part of suitability or eligibility,” the AG said that mere filing of a charge sheet would not amount to a stigma on the officer and would not affect his suitability.
When the CJI asked whether the CVC report on Mr. Thomas was placed before the selection committee headed by the Prime Minister, the AG said: “It is not required to be placed before the committee. Once there is a CVC clearance and empanelment, it is difficult to hold another inquiry.”
When the AG argued that the question of suitability of a candidate was squarely the domain of the appointing authority and was not subject to judicial review, the CJI said: “If there are non-controvertible facts and when two views are not possible, can you still say that suitability is not subject to judicial review even under the concept of administrative law? If the CVC has given clearance without giving weightage to the Kerala High Court judgment, then what is the position? Can you still say that non-placing of relevant materials before the committee has not vitiated the selection process?”
The AG said: “The relevant facts like his [Thomas'] appointment as Chief Secretary, CVC clearance and empanelment were considered by the committee and even if divergent views are possible such a decision is beyond the scope of judicial review.”
Caught between leaders
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Thomas, justified his appointment, saying he was caught in a political battle between two leaders.
When Justice Radhakrishnan wanted to know whether any independent probe was conducted by the CVC, counsel said no such enquiry was held. The CJI said, “When you say there is a see-saw political battle, it is all the more necessary for the CVC to have conducted an independent enquiry.” Arguments will continue on February 7.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India S. H. Kapadia and Justices K. S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar is hearing a writ petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, challenging the appointment of Mr. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner.
Attorney-General G. E. Vahanvati said there were no standard procedures or guidelines for the preparation of a panel of names for appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. In the case of Mr. Thomas, the CVC had given clearance and on that basis he was appointed Chief Secretary.
The CJI asked the AG whether the government had prepared the panel for selection of the CVC by merely downloading biodata of the empanelled officers from their websites or by going into their service files. The AG replied: “Once a person is appointed Secretary on clearance by the CVC, he can be considered for empanelment and no further inquiry is required.”
The CJI then asked “whether the fact of charge sheet/sanction by the Kerala government and the Kerala High Court judgment refusing to allow the palmolein case to be closed were placed before the CVC.”
The CJI further asked: “As per the Vineet Narain judgment, the CVC has to be a person of impeccable integrity as he has to remain independent, impartial, free and fair and uninfluenced by political executives. Can you [the government] say Mr. Thomas, facing a charge sheet, will come under the category of impeccable integrity and should we not read into the provisions of the CVC Act to fill the gap in the law?”
The AG said: “There is a clear distinction between eligibility and suitability. Eligibility goes to the conditions for appointment, whereas suitability is the ability of the person to discharge the responsibilities of that office.”
'No case of conspiracy'
Mr. Vahanvati pointed out that when the CVC gave its clearance it had clearly stated that no case of conspiracy was made out against Mr. Thomas.
This prompted Justice Swatanter Kumar to ask the AG, “Can the CVC travel beyond its jurisdiction and go into realm of judicial review? How can the CVC say that there is no merit in the case while giving clearance to an officer?”
When Justice Radhakrishnan wanted to know whether “filing of a charge sheet was not a stigma, and further, is that stigma part of suitability or eligibility,” the AG said that mere filing of a charge sheet would not amount to a stigma on the officer and would not affect his suitability.
When the CJI asked whether the CVC report on Mr. Thomas was placed before the selection committee headed by the Prime Minister, the AG said: “It is not required to be placed before the committee. Once there is a CVC clearance and empanelment, it is difficult to hold another inquiry.”
When the AG argued that the question of suitability of a candidate was squarely the domain of the appointing authority and was not subject to judicial review, the CJI said: “If there are non-controvertible facts and when two views are not possible, can you still say that suitability is not subject to judicial review even under the concept of administrative law? If the CVC has given clearance without giving weightage to the Kerala High Court judgment, then what is the position? Can you still say that non-placing of relevant materials before the committee has not vitiated the selection process?”
The AG said: “The relevant facts like his [Thomas'] appointment as Chief Secretary, CVC clearance and empanelment were considered by the committee and even if divergent views are possible such a decision is beyond the scope of judicial review.”
Caught between leaders
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Thomas, justified his appointment, saying he was caught in a political battle between two leaders.
When Justice Radhakrishnan wanted to know whether any independent probe was conducted by the CVC, counsel said no such enquiry was held. The CJI said, “When you say there is a see-saw political battle, it is all the more necessary for the CVC to have conducted an independent enquiry.” Arguments will continue on February 7.