Hindustan Times
The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the appointment of P J Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner. The apex court said that the high-powered committee's recommendation on appointment of Thomas "does not exist in law". Apex court rejected the contention of Thomas and the government that the appointment of the CVC cannot be brought under judicial review. SC said that the legality of the recommendation can be brought under judicial review. The committee and no government authority focussed on larger issue of institutional integrity of the office of CVC while recommending the name of Thomas, said SC.
Apex court said the touchstone for the appointment of the CVC is the institutional integrity as well as the personal
integrity of the candidate. SC said any future appointment should not be restricted to civil servants alone but people of impeccable integrity from other fields should also be considered.
SC said any future appointment should not be restricted to civil servants alone but people of impeccable integrity from other fields should also be considered.
Thomas had rejected calls from the opposition to resign, saying the charges against him in the palm oil case were baseless.
Singh's government sought to defend his appointment as the head of the country's main anti-corruption agency, saying it was not aware of the allegations against him, and that a government panel had cleared his appointment.
"We hereby declare the recommendation by the high powered committee does not exist in the eyes of law," the court, headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia said.
"Consequently, the appointment of P.J. Thomas as chief vigilance commissioner is quashed," the court said.
A series of corruption scandals have undermined confidence in the coalition's ability to govern.
Singh last month said on TV he was not a "lame duck" leader, soon before the government gave in to the opposition's demand to set up a parliamentary probe into the telecoms scam.
A bench of chief justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar had reserved its judgement on February 10.
The PIL filed by an NGO, Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and retired bureacrats 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 resigned after the verdict. Thomas was appointed CVC on September 7 last year.
In her first reaction to the verdict, leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj tweeted that the "dignity of the office of CVC has been restored".HT reported it first
The Hindustan Times was the first to break the news on Sept 24, 2010. It had a front-page report based on two RTI queries furnished by it. The state vigilance directorate and vigilance and anti-corruption bureau court in Thiruvananthapuram gave replies under RTI stating that P J Thomas is eighth accused in the vigilance case CC No 6/2003.
While elevating Thomas as the CVC the central government claimed that he was exonerated in the palm oil import case. But records available with the vigilance court clearly showed he was an accused and could be prosecuted.
The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the appointment of P J Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner. The apex court said that the high-powered committee's recommendation on appointment of Thomas "does not exist in law". Apex court rejected the contention of Thomas and the government that the appointment of the CVC cannot be brought under judicial review. SC said that the legality of the recommendation can be brought under judicial review. The committee and no government authority focussed on larger issue of institutional integrity of the office of CVC while recommending the name of Thomas, said SC.
Apex court said the touchstone for the appointment of the CVC is the institutional integrity as well as the personal
integrity of the candidate. SC said any future appointment should not be restricted to civil servants alone but people of impeccable integrity from other fields should also be considered.
SC said any future appointment should not be restricted to civil servants alone but people of impeccable integrity from other fields should also be considered.
Thomas had rejected calls from the opposition to resign, saying the charges against him in the palm oil case were baseless.
Singh's government sought to defend his appointment as the head of the country's main anti-corruption agency, saying it was not aware of the allegations against him, and that a government panel had cleared his appointment.
"We hereby declare the recommendation by the high powered committee does not exist in the eyes of law," the court, headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia said.
"Consequently, the appointment of P.J. Thomas as chief vigilance commissioner is quashed," the court said.
A series of corruption scandals have undermined confidence in the coalition's ability to govern.
Singh last month said on TV he was not a "lame duck" leader, soon before the government gave in to the opposition's demand to set up a parliamentary probe into the telecoms scam.
A bench of chief justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar had reserved its judgement on February 10.
The PIL filed by an NGO, Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and retired bureacrats 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 resigned after the verdict. Thomas was appointed CVC on September 7 last year.
In her first reaction to the verdict, leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj tweeted that the "dignity of the office of CVC has been restored".HT reported it first
The Hindustan Times was the first to break the news on Sept 24, 2010. It had a front-page report based on two RTI queries furnished by it. The state vigilance directorate and vigilance and anti-corruption bureau court in Thiruvananthapuram gave replies under RTI stating that P J Thomas is eighth accused in the vigilance case CC No 6/2003.
While elevating Thomas as the CVC the central government claimed that he was exonerated in the palm oil import case. But records available with the vigilance court clearly showed he was an accused and could be prosecuted.
No comments:
Post a Comment