In a question shorn of legalese, central vigilance commissioner PJ Thomas on Monday asked the Supreme Court why his ?impeccable integrity? is in the firing line for a two-decade-old chargesheet in the palmolein case when even the Parliament chooses ?unfortunately? to tolerate lawmakers facing serious criminal charges, including murder.
The CVC donned the role of an unexpected critic of the establishment in the Supreme Court when he said that ?28% Members of Parliament ? 153 of 543 ? are facing charges of various kind, 54 face serious criminal charges, including murder. And unfortunately they are the very persons who make laws for us?.
He added that tainted MPs also do not face any bar from being ministers. This criticism follows closely behind an earlier stance from Thomas that chargesheets form part and parcel of the life of a civil servant, and there are many like him who hold ?high posts? despite the cases slapped against them.
To an oft-repeated question from a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia as to whether the government can appoint a convicted person to the next “important post”, senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the CVC, said the instance did not apply to him, but went on to counter how the law allows MPs sentenced to less than two years to continue with their tenure in the Parliament. On the other hand, Venugopal submitted that his client was facing only a chargesheet in a “politically motivated” case in which he is not the prime accused. The CVC wondered aloud in the court as to why the members of the high-powered committee could not have asked for his entire service file, which should have been available with the secretary concerned in the next room. “All the files are kept with the secretary in the next room. Don’t know what happened…members could have asked for it anytime.” he said.
This when Attorney General GE Vhanvati, appearing for the Union of India, carefully maintained that he was not aware of what transpired in the closed door meeting of the PM’s panel on September 3, 2010. To Venugopal’s contention that the court do not have any scope for judicial review in Thomas’s appointment under the CVC Act, 2003 as there was no infringement of the law, the bench retorted saying that “today under judicial review we can strike down even constitutional appointments. If the highest authority (PM’s panel) did not take into account the relevant facts, should we still keep its hands off the case?” By “relevant facts” the court is referring to the government’s submission that the three-member high-powered committee led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had appointed Thomas as CVC solely on the basis of a bio-data silent about the palmolein chargesheet, the pending trial and a Kerala government sanction in 1999 to prosecute Thomas for criminal conspiracy in the case. In its first indication that the Supreme Court may issue guidelines to tighten the procedure for appointment of CVCs, Chief Justice Kapadia said the court was just not concerned about Thomas’s case, but “we are on the future”. The court asked Venugopal to address it on a situation when “under the statute (CVC Act) there are no guidelines for disqualification and the appointment is vitiated by the non-consideration of relevant facts. Can we make the law?” The arguments are expected to close and the case reserved for final orders on Thursday.