Govt brings records of CVC, VC appointments for Supreme Court’s perusal

It had then asked the government to produce the original records for its perusal during the hearing of the petitions challenging these appointments.

“Keeping in view the urgency and importance of the appointments of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioner, which are kept vacant from the last few months, we permit them to proceed further in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Act.

“After such appointments are made, the Attorney General would produce a copy of the order and the entire original record before this court. All the contentions of both the parties are left open,” the court had said.

When the matters were called for the hearing on Friday, the bench said it would hear them “on some other date”.

The issue appointment of the CVC and the VC has seen two round of litigations.

Initially, a PIL filed by NGO ‘Centre for Integrity, Governance and Training in Vigilance Administration’ had alleged that the government was going ahead with the appointment of CVC and VC without giving wide publicity to the vacancies arising, following completion of tenure of CVC Pradip Kumar and then VC J M Garg.

Later, the plea challenged the subsequent appointment of K V Chaudhary as CVC and T M Bhasin as VC alleging they do not have a clean record.

The apex court, on August 13, 2015, had issued notice to the Centre on the subsequent plea challenging the appointment of the CVC and the VC.

The plea had challenged the appointmentsto the two posts alleging that they did not have “clean record” and that a “complete non-transparency” procedure was followed while appointing them.

While Chaudhary was appointed as the CVC on June 6, 2015, Bhasin took charge as the VC on June 11, 2015.

The PIL alleged that their appointments were “arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principle of institutional integrity”.

“The government did not even place the names of short-listed candidates in public domain or the fact that Chaudhary and Bhasin were being considered for the appointment to such important positions,” the plea alleged.

It said this complete non-transparency renders the appointment “void and illegal”, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In December, 2014, the apex court had asked the Centre to take its prior “leave” before going ahead with appointments for which 10 candidates each were shortlisted after scrutinising 130 applications.