New Delhi, November 22
A three-member Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia today asked the Centre how the newly appointed Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) PJ Thomas would be able to function as he was still an accused in a 2000 case relating to irregularities in the import of palm oil.

The Bench, which included Justices KSP Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, pointed out that the CVC was ordering investigations into complaints of corruption received by the Commission, the appellate anti-corruption body that supervised the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The accused in such complaints “will say you can’t process these as you are an accused in a criminal case.”

“How will he function” under such situations, the Bench asked Attorney General GE Vahanvati during arguments on two PILs challenging the appointment of Thomas as CVC despite the allegations against him in the cases relating to the oil import and the spectrum scam and the objections raised by Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. At the last hearing, the SC had asked for all the records relating to the appointment of Thomas as CVC.

The court also wanted to know how the case against Thomas could proceed if he was the CVC.

As soon the Bench took up the case for hearing, the Attorney General handed over the records in a sealed cover to the Bench. The Attorney General, however, said the records did not include the deliberations that took place at the three-member committee comprising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P Chidambaram and Swaraj.

The minutes of the committee’s deliberations were not recorded as none other than the three was present at the meeting, Vahanvati said. According to the PILs -- one by the Centre for PIL and another by former Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh -- the government had given a go-bye to the SC guidelines for CVC appointment. Under the guidelines, the three-member committee should choose the CVC from a panel of outstanding civil servants with impeccable integrity. The Bench wanted to know whether this criterion was followed.

The Attorney General said even Lyngdoh had endorsed in an annual confidential report (ACR) that Thomas had impeccable integrity. However, the Bench wanted to know how the chargesheet against Thomas had consistently been ignored in the last 10 years when Thomas was promoted several times -- from being Food Secretary in Kerala to becoming Secretary in the Department of Telecom and in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs before being appointed as CVC.

The Attorney General said if the criterion of impeccable integrity was applied then even the appointments of several Judges and for other Constitutional offices would be “subject to scrutiny and challenged.”

The Bench then asked the Attorney General to take the views of the Centre on how the CVC would be in a position to discharge his duties despite the chargesheet and adjourned the hearing for two weeks.

Nevertheless, the Attorney General maintained that the Vigilance Department had given a clean chit to Thomas stating that there was no substance in the allegations.