New Delhi:
The latest salvo in the BJP-Government war of words on the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner PJ Thomas comes from Home Minister P Chidambaram, who has issued another statement taking "exception to the statement by Ms Sushma Swaraj that I had 'misled the Selection Committee' and told the Committee that Shri Thomas had been 'acquitted'."
Chidambaram has accused Swaraj of "tying herself in knots" by making what he calls "thoughtless allegations" and has requested the BJP leader to let the Supreme Court decide the matter as it is now sub-judice. (Read - Chidambaram responds to Sushma Swaraj: Full Statement)
At the heart of the controversy over Mr Thomas' appointment is his having allegedly allowed the import of Palmolein or edible oil from Malaysia at prices that were higher than the market rate when he was Food Secretary in Kerala in 1991-92. That decision reportedly cost the government close to Rs 20 crore. Swaraj, who as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha has a say in the appointment of the CVC, has said she had raised this matter with the Prime Minister and the Home Minister before Thomas was appointed CVC in November 2010.
On Tuesday, Sushma said she was abandoning her decision to file an affidavit on the happenings at the meeting of the three-member selection committee, but accused Chidambaram of misleading the panel by informing it that PJ Thomas had been acquitted in the palmolein case. (Read: Sushma on CVC case: Will not file affidavit)
"I had asked that even if Thomas was acquitted in the case, was he eligible to the post of the CVC, who should be an outstanding officer with impeccable integrity... The entire debate was based on this," Sushma told reporters after LK Advani's press conference.
Sushma's announcement came a day after Chidambaram said there had indeed been a discussion on Thomas' involvement in the palmolein case at the meeting of the committee - which consists of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Swaraj and him. He said that since neither the NDA government nor the UPA government that followed had given its assent for Mr Thomas' prosecution, the PM and he were in favour of his being made the CVC.
Last week, when the government was asked in the Supreme Court if papers related to the chargesheet against Mr Thomas in the edible oil scam were circulated among the three members of the committee that appointed Mr Thomas, Attorney General, GE Vahanvati, had said the documents had not been presented to the Home Minister, the Prime Minister, and Sushma Swaraj.
Vahanvati's remarks were interpreted by the media to mean that the government's stand in court is that the PM was not aware of the case against Mr. Thomas when he sanctioned his appointment as CVC in November, 2010.
Sushma Swaraj responded that this was incorrect. "I personally brought this to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister..."
Vahanvati clarified later that the committee may have discussed the case orally, and that when he raised that point in court, he was told by the judges that it was not relevant.
Mr. Thomas' appointment is being heard by the Supreme Court on the basis of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Prashant Bhushan.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has expressed its concern over Mr. Thomas' appointment.
The case in the Supreme Court also alleges that as CVC, Mr. Thomas faces a massive conflict of interest because while he was Telecom Secretary, he signed off on decisions that contributed to the 2G spectrum scam - estimated to be worth Rs. 1.76 lakh crore by the government's auditor. Mr. Thomas has recused himself from monitoring the investigation into the scam.
In court on Tuesday, PJ Thomas defended his appointment as the CVC saying his integrity was impeccable. Thomas said there was no Supreme Court sanction to prosecute him, adding, "Bureaucrats often become victim of political vendetta. I was a victim of Kerala politics. Media has tarnished my image. I want to give my side of the story." (Read: Thomas defends appointment as CVC in court)
Chidambaram has accused Swaraj of "tying herself in knots" by making what he calls "thoughtless allegations" and has requested the BJP leader to let the Supreme Court decide the matter as it is now sub-judice. (Read - Chidambaram responds to Sushma Swaraj: Full Statement)
At the heart of the controversy over Mr Thomas' appointment is his having allegedly allowed the import of Palmolein or edible oil from Malaysia at prices that were higher than the market rate when he was Food Secretary in Kerala in 1991-92. That decision reportedly cost the government close to Rs 20 crore. Swaraj, who as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha has a say in the appointment of the CVC, has said she had raised this matter with the Prime Minister and the Home Minister before Thomas was appointed CVC in November 2010.
On Tuesday, Sushma said she was abandoning her decision to file an affidavit on the happenings at the meeting of the three-member selection committee, but accused Chidambaram of misleading the panel by informing it that PJ Thomas had been acquitted in the palmolein case. (Read: Sushma on CVC case: Will not file affidavit)
"I had asked that even if Thomas was acquitted in the case, was he eligible to the post of the CVC, who should be an outstanding officer with impeccable integrity... The entire debate was based on this," Sushma told reporters after LK Advani's press conference.
Sushma's announcement came a day after Chidambaram said there had indeed been a discussion on Thomas' involvement in the palmolein case at the meeting of the committee - which consists of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Swaraj and him. He said that since neither the NDA government nor the UPA government that followed had given its assent for Mr Thomas' prosecution, the PM and he were in favour of his being made the CVC.
Last week, when the government was asked in the Supreme Court if papers related to the chargesheet against Mr Thomas in the edible oil scam were circulated among the three members of the committee that appointed Mr Thomas, Attorney General, GE Vahanvati, had said the documents had not been presented to the Home Minister, the Prime Minister, and Sushma Swaraj.
Vahanvati's remarks were interpreted by the media to mean that the government's stand in court is that the PM was not aware of the case against Mr. Thomas when he sanctioned his appointment as CVC in November, 2010.
Sushma Swaraj responded that this was incorrect. "I personally brought this to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister..."
Vahanvati clarified later that the committee may have discussed the case orally, and that when he raised that point in court, he was told by the judges that it was not relevant.
Mr. Thomas' appointment is being heard by the Supreme Court on the basis of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Prashant Bhushan.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has expressed its concern over Mr. Thomas' appointment.
The case in the Supreme Court also alleges that as CVC, Mr. Thomas faces a massive conflict of interest because while he was Telecom Secretary, he signed off on decisions that contributed to the 2G spectrum scam - estimated to be worth Rs. 1.76 lakh crore by the government's auditor. Mr. Thomas has recused himself from monitoring the investigation into the scam.
In court on Tuesday, PJ Thomas defended his appointment as the CVC saying his integrity was impeccable. Thomas said there was no Supreme Court sanction to prosecute him, adding, "Bureaucrats often become victim of political vendetta. I was a victim of Kerala politics. Media has tarnished my image. I want to give my side of the story." (Read: Thomas defends appointment as CVC in court)
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
