The Hindu : New Delhi News : CVC appointment void from the beginning: Petition

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Oct 21, 2010
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

CVC appointment void from the beginning: Petition

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi: A writ of quo warranto has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of P. J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner.

The public interest litigation petition, filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan through the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Common Cause, sought a declaration that the appointment of Thomas is illegal and void as it violated Section 4 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and the Supreme Court judgment in the Vineet Narain case.

Main function

The petition said the CVC's main function was to exercise superintendence over and monitor anti-corruption work and investigations being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The most important investigation being carried out by the CBI today was into the scam of 2G spectrum allocation which cost the exchequer about Rs. 70,000 crore. Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Thomas), having served till recently as Telecom Secretary and having been allegedly involved in a cover-up of the scam, was clearly barred from holding the post of CVC for reasons of conflict of interests.

Also, the petition said, Mr. Thomas was chargesheeted in a palmolein scam when he was Kerala Food and Civil Supplies Secretary.

‘Charge-sheeted'

“The very fact that an officer of such seniority was chargesheeted shows that there was a strong prima facie case and evidence against him. RTI [under the Right to Information Act] replies from the court concerned have revealed that proceedings against him are still on and he is still an accused. He is out on bail.”

The petition said: “The Selection Committee of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition cannot decide by majority overruling the Leader of Opposition as that would defeat the purpose of including the Leader of the Opposition in the said Committee making the appointment of India's top anti-corruption watchdog over the Government as the Government's own appointee and thus destroy the institution of CVC. The Selection Committee was always meant to function by unanimity or consensus. Mr. Thomas's appointment being made by overruling the Leader of Opposition, who recorded her dissent, is therefore illegal and void ab initio. The appointment being arbitrary also violates Article 14 [equality before law] of the Constitution.”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi