The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the appointment of P J Thomas as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner,thereby answering decisively the question over his eligibility to sit on that chair since he faces a criminal case in Kerala. In what comes as an embarrassment for the UPA government,the court said the recommendation made by the Prime Minister's high-powered committee to appoint Thomas did not consider the relevant material (case against him) and as such its advice does not exist in law. The Bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantar Kumar also ignored a desperate plea from Thomas himself that he was a man of 'impeccable integrity'. The Supreme Court was extremely critical of the Prime Minister's panel that appointed Thomas to the post overruling strong opposition from its only BJP member Sushma Swaraj. The apex court said the PM panel's appointment of Thomas was against the 'institutional integrity' that the CVC stands for. The court said the panel's choice amounted to 'official arbitrariness'. The apex court was scathing in its observation that the PM panel's recommendation was not an 'informed decision'. The court observed: We declare that the recommendation made by the high-powered committee is non-est in law. Which means that the recommendations made on September 3,2010 does not exist in law. Consequently,the appointment of Thomas goes." The court also observed: "The high-powered committee has to take into consideration what is good for the institution and not for the candidate. The touchstone is public interest. The court further said the CVC is a "high integrity institution". "If selection affects institutional competency,it was the duty of the high-powered committee to not recommend such a candidate," the Bench observed. The court said the committee failed to consider relevant material against Thomas and the entire focus was on his bio-data and that none of the government bodies focussed on the larger issue of institutional integrity. The Bench severely criticised the committee for not considering the relevant material,including the pending criminal case against Thomas in the palmolein import case and the recommendations of the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) between 2000-04 for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. The court rejected the contention of Thomas and the government that the appointment of CVC cannot be brought under judicial review and said the legality of the recommendation can very much be reviewed by it. The Bench also rejected the government's contention that vigilance clearance given by the CVC in 2008 was the basis for empanelment of Thomas as a candidate for the post of the CVC. While observing that the touchstone for the appointment of CVC is the institutional integrity as well as the personal integrity of the candidate,the court said in future,appointments should not be restricted to civil servants alone but people of impeccable integrity from other fields should also be considered. The Bench said if there is a dissent note by any of the three members of the high-power panel,it has to be given with sufficient reasons and has to be considered by a majority. Further,the majority should also give reasons for their decision as this will lead to a transparent process in public interest and also inspire public confidence,it said. The Bench said,"It is surprising that there were notings by the DoPT between 2000 and 2004 and all observed that penalty proceedings be instituted against Thomas. Such notings were not considered in the case of Thomas,who was given the CVC's clearance on September 6,2008. "No reference of such notings made between 2000 and 2004 is there. Therefore,on personal integrity,the high-powered committee did not consider the relevant material." "We are concerned with the institution and its integrity but not with the individual," the Bench stressed,adding the impartiality of the institution has to be maintained which is envisaged in the CVC Act. A PIL filed by an NGO,Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and retired bureaucrats and police officials,including former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh,had challenged Thomas' appointment to the post in view of a pending criminal case against him in a Kerala court. Thomas was appointed CVC on September 7 last year. Thomas has contested the PIL contending that he was appointed to the post in view of the vigilance clearance given to him before his appointment as Secretary in the Union government. Further,the embattled CVC had said the corruption case pending against him in the Kerala Court was a result of political rivalry between former Chief Minister K Karunakaran and present Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan. The petitioners had contended Thomas cannot be considered as a person of "impeccable integrity" as a chargesheet was filed against him in palmolein import scam when he was a secretary in the Kerala Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies. He had secured bail from a local court. The petitioners also said he could not be appointed CVC on account of "conflict of interest" as till recently he was serving as Telecom secretary and that there was the allegation that he was involved in an alleged "cover-up" of 2G spectrum scam.
