Back away now

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the three-member panel that chose the Central Vigilance Commissioner P.J. Thomas did not know much about him. They had,he said,access only to his bio-data,which did not mention details such as the fact that the candidate they were reviewing for the post of the countrys top anti-corruption watchdog had a high-profile corruption case lodged against him. Nor did they know,Vahanvati asserted,that the state government had eventually sanctioned Thomas prosecution. They would have known,though,that Thomas was secretary in A. Rajas telecom ministry,the decisions taken by which will be major subjects for corruption investigation for the foreseeable future. This was in response to close questioning by the SC,which wanted to ensure that the CVC Acts requirements for a suitable candidate had been met.

Sushma Swaraj,the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and one of the three members of the selection committee the others were the prime minister and the home minister disagreed,insisting that she had spoken about the palmolein case in which Thomas was embroiled. Swaraj had dissented from the committees choice,which is supposed to be made by consensus; by her version of events,the decision to go by majority vote rather than the required consensus becomes even more worrying. But,even if the committee was not properly briefed,questions will have to be asked about the degree to which the government performed the necessary background checks required for a high constitutional post; and about the seriousness with which the governments representatives on the committee took the task of finding an officer in whom experience and perceived integrity were sufficiently combined to allow him to do her job properly. For reasons beyond Thomas case,the Centre must explain how such standard drills were compromised,if indeed they were.

As the SC pointed out in cross-questioning,there will have been many eligible officers. Given that fact,it makes the UPAs choice of Thomas ever more puzzling. The government,on January 18,in an affidavit before the court,had chosen to defend Thomas and the manner of his appointment.

Its clear now that,irrespective of whether or not Thomas is guilty and he has not yet been found so the government is guilty of both negligence and arrogance. It must stop defending itself now,for such defence will necessarily be inept; and begin expressing regret and beginning repair for this inexcusable series of events.