By IANS,
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday, while quashing the appointment of P.J. Thomas as central vigilance commissioner (CVC), also laid down the guidelines for making future appointments to ensure these were done in a transparent manner that was in harmony with the CVC Act.
It also rejected Thomas’ contention that once he had been cleared by the pervious head of the anti-corruption watchdog for a posting in the central government, the criminal proceedings against him in a graft case could not be a hurdle to his selection as the CVC.
The key guidelines laid for the appointment of the CVC are:
* In future, the zone of consideration (of candidates for appointment as the CVC) shall not be restricted to civil servants.
* All the civil servants and other persons empanelled shall be outstanding civil servants or persons of impeccable integrity.
* The empanelment of candidates shall be carried out on the basis of rational criteria, which is to be reflected by recording of reasons and/or noting akin to reasons by the empanelling authority.
* The empanelment shall be carried out by a person not below the rank of secretary to the government of India in the ministry concerned.
An apex court bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar, while quashing Thomas’ appointment, said: “We find no merit in (his) submissions.”
Thomas was facing criminal proceedings in the Kerala palm oil import case when he was seleccted by a high powered committee (HPC) for being appointed the CVC.
“Judicial review seeks to ensure… whether relevant material and vital aspects having nexus to the object of the 2003 (CVC) Act were taken into account when the decision to recommend (Thomas as CVC) took place on Sep 3, 2010,” the court said.
The judgment said that “the appointment to the post of the Central Vigilance Commissioner must satisfy not only the eligibility criteria of the candidate but also the decision making process of the recommendation. The decision to recommend has got to be an informed decision keeping in mind the fact that CVC as an institution has to perform an important function of vigilance administration”.
While elaborating on the procedure of the appointment of the CVC, the judgment said: “If a statutory body likethe HPC, for any reason whatsoever, fails to look into the relevant material having nexus to the object and purpose of the 2003 Act or takes into account irrelevant circumstances then its decision would stand vitiated on the ground of official arbitrariness.”
The “system of governance established by the constitution is based on distribution of powers and functions amongst the three organs of the state, one of them being the executive whose duty is to enforce the laws made by parliament and administer the country through various statutory bodies like the CVC, which is empowered to perform the function of vigilance administration”.