Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas today 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 Parliament chooses to unfortunately tolerate lawmakers facing serious criminal charges,including murder. Pointing out that tainted MPs do not face any bar from being ministers,Thomas said 28 per cent Members of Parliament 153 of 543 face charges of various kinds,54 face serious criminal charges,including murder. And unfortunately they are the very persons who make laws for us. This criticism follows his earlier stance 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 S H Kapadia on whether the government can appoint a convicted person to the next important post,senior advocate K K 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 Parliament. On the other hand,Venugopal submitted,his client was facing only a chargesheet in a politically motivated case in which he was not the prime accused. The CVC wondered aloud in court why 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. Dont know what happened. members could have asked for it any time. he said. 28% MPs face charges. why me: CVC to SC This,when Attorney General GE Vahanvati,appearing for the Union of India,maintained that he was not aware of what transpired in the closed-door meeting of the PMs panel on September 3,2010. To Venugopals contention that the court does not have any scope for judicial review in the appointment of Thomas under the CVC Act,2003 as there was no infringement of law,the bench said that today under judicial review we can strike down even constitutional appointments. If the highest authority (PMs panel) did not take into account the relevant facts,should we still keep its hands off the case? By relevant facts,the court was referring to the governments 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 not just concerned about the Thomas 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.
