The Supreme Court today asked a simple,hypothetical question as to how Chief Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas intended to function given his inclusion as an accused in the 10-year-old chargesheet in the palmolein import case. In reply,Attorney General G E Vahanvati,appearing for the government,said that if impeccable integrity was a criterion for public office,then every judicial and constitutional appointment would be subject to scrutiny. The debate between a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia and the governments top law officer was triggered by the court noting that Thomas could face questions at every stage about his own role as an accused in the palmolein corruption case. The court gave the government two weeks to address it on two questions: How will Thomas perform his duties with a chargesheet pending against him? Whether impeccable integrity is an eligibility criterion for appointment as CVC? Todays hearing,on a petition filed by a group of retired officials led by former chief election commissioner J M Lyngdoh against the governments choice of Thomas,began with the Attorney General (AG) handing over to the court documents in a sealed cover recording the entire process of decision-making that preceded the appointment. On November 8,the court had directed the government to produce this on record to show that proper consultation was indeed done in the case of Thomas. It wanted to verify whether Thomass service record answered to the expressions impeccable integrity and outstanding civil servant,which the Supreme Court had said the CVC should essentially possess,in a judgment. Vahanvati submitted that there was no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Thomas,and even the sanction to prosecute him was refused. To Thomass credit,the AG said,the same LDF government in Kerala that had initiated the inquiry against him in the palmolein case had later made him the states chief secretary and went on to recommend his name as Parliamentary Affairs Secretary at the Centre. When a person is empanelled in the Centre (as Parliamentary Affairs Secretary),CVC clearance is a must. CVC had said he was clean. Impeccable integrity is only a suggestion. It cannot be made a criterion, the AG argued. If such a criterion (impeccable integrity) has to be included,then every judicial appointment will be subject to scrutiny. every constitutional appointment will come under challenge, the AG said. Brushing aside specific questions from the AG on whether the courts queries pertained to Thomass role in the palmolein case or his alleged involvement as telecom secretary in the 2G Spectrum allocation,Chief Justice Kapadia clarified that the court simply wants to know from the government whether under the Act this person (Thomas) will be non-functional in this post or not. Being an accused,having been chargesheeted,you (Thomas) cannot issue notice to a party in a case. At every stage,you will have complaints saying you cannot process this matter or that case as you are an accused. How will you function then? the Chief Justice said. But anybody could face this, Vahanvati countered. How is that? Here there is a chargesheet. he is an accused in the case, the Chief Justice responded. The chargesheet is pending since 2000. Should a man be blighted forever? the AG asked. He said the CVCs appointment on September 7 came after detailed consultations. A high-level committee,comprising the Prime Minister,Leader of the Opposition and Union Home Minister,had thrashed it out in a 45-minute discussion before deciding on Thomas. He was the telecom secretary at the time. To this,the Chief Justice responded with an example of how in the Excise Tribunal (of which he is a part),officers accused in a criminal case are not even considered for promotion. And this is the CVC, he finished. Justice Swatanter Kumar,also on the Bench along with Justice K S Radhakrishnan,said jurisprudence did not normally allow promotions to a person against whom a chargesheet is pending. Vahanvati then pointed out how Lyngdoh himself had described Thomass performance with remarks like integrity beyond doubt in the latters annual confidential reports. But now,he (Lyngdoh) turns around and questions his (Thomas) integrity, the AG said,adding that the government is not running away and understands the importance of integrity in this (CJIs) court most of all. To this,the CJI replied: Not only in this court,every court.
