New Delhi:
The government grazed with more criticism from the Supreme Court on Thursday over its decision to select PJ Thomas as the country's Chief Vigilance Commissioner, even though he is chargesheeted in a case of corruption. As Chief Vigilance Commissioner or CVC, Mr Thomas is appointed specifically to combat corruption.
Since it picked Mr Thomas in September last year, the government has faced a fusillade of angry charges. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has challenged Mr Thomas' appointment in the Supreme Court, which has suggested repeatedly that it does not believe Mr Thomas was the best man for the job, given the case against him.
And the BJP's Sushma Swaraj placed her dissent on record. However, she was over-ruled by the PM and the Home Minister, who along with the Leader of the Opposition pick India's CVC.
In court, Mr Thomas has defended himself by claiming that he is the victim of political vendetta. (
Read: Thomas defends appointment as CVC in court)
The Supreme Court seized this point today, saying, "With this kind of political see-saw (of Kerala's different CMs and their decision to not seek prosecution and then to prosecute ) it is more important for an inquiry."
Mr Thomas was Kerala's Food Secretary in the early 90s when he facilitated the import of edible oil or Pamolein at astronomical prices. He was chargesheeted along with seven others, including the then Chief Minister Karunakaran. However, the progress of the case has depended much on who was in government in Kerala. When the Congress-led UDF was in power, the case was stalled. When the Left Democratic Front took over, the case began progressing.
The government told the court today that "a chargesheet is not a stigma." But the judges had several tough questions. They wanted to know how the government narrowed the 54 original candidates for CVC to three, and then to Mr Thomas. They also nmade the point that the CVC should be "independent from his political masters."
And in an admission that is likely to provoke a new line of questions, the Attorney General said there are no fixed guidelines for the selection of the CVC. The court responded by saying that the process of selection must be streamlined and that "the totality of the circumstances must be taken into account."