New Delhi:
Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj said on Tuesday that she will not file an affidavit in the case related to the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner PJ Thomas.
"The Home Minister has admitted that I raised Palmolein case in the meeting and recorded my disagreement precisely for this reason. Now there is no dispute on facts. Therefore, there is no need for my affidavit," she said.
On Monday, the government made its stand clear on why PJ Thomas was selected as the CVC. This after the Supreme Court questioned why Thomas was picked as the country's senior-most officer in charge of fighting corruption despite the fact that he had been chargesheeted in a case of corruption.
Thomas was selected in September 2010 by a three-member committee that was headed by the Prime Minister, and included the Home Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
The case against Thomas accuses him of sanctioning the import of edible oil - Palmolein - from Malaysia in 1991 when he was Food Secretary in the Kerala government. The prices paid for the oil were later declared unjustifiable.
Sushma Swaraj had protested publically and aggressively against Thomas' selection. Acknowledging this, Chidambaram said on Monday that at a meeting in September, the Palmolein case was extensively discussed by the PM, him and Ms Swaraj.
Explaining the decision to select Thomas, the Home Minister said, "She (Swaraj) made her points, the other members (PM and HM) of the Committee made their points. It was brought to the notice of the Committee during the discussion that although the case was registered, no sanction of prosecution was granted by the NDA government from December 1999 to May, 2004 and by the UPA government subsequently."
When a reporter asked why the government chose a candidate who had been chargesheeted, Chidambaram said, "I respect your right to hold a point of view similarly you should also respect our point of view. The matter is actively subjudice."
Thomas' appointment as CVC has been challenged with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. So far, the hearings have left the government blushing, with the government scrambling to explain why the case against Thomas was overlooked.
At the last hearing, the court asked if the committee that selected Thomas had seen the documents relevant to the corruption charges against him. The Attorney General, GE Vahanvati, denied this.
"The Home Minister has admitted that I raised Palmolein case in the meeting and recorded my disagreement precisely for this reason. Now there is no dispute on facts. Therefore, there is no need for my affidavit," she said.
On Monday, the government made its stand clear on why PJ Thomas was selected as the CVC. This after the Supreme Court questioned why Thomas was picked as the country's senior-most officer in charge of fighting corruption despite the fact that he had been chargesheeted in a case of corruption.
Thomas was selected in September 2010 by a three-member committee that was headed by the Prime Minister, and included the Home Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
The case against Thomas accuses him of sanctioning the import of edible oil - Palmolein - from Malaysia in 1991 when he was Food Secretary in the Kerala government. The prices paid for the oil were later declared unjustifiable.
Sushma Swaraj had protested publically and aggressively against Thomas' selection. Acknowledging this, Chidambaram said on Monday that at a meeting in September, the Palmolein case was extensively discussed by the PM, him and Ms Swaraj.
Explaining the decision to select Thomas, the Home Minister said, "She (Swaraj) made her points, the other members (PM and HM) of the Committee made their points. It was brought to the notice of the Committee during the discussion that although the case was registered, no sanction of prosecution was granted by the NDA government from December 1999 to May, 2004 and by the UPA government subsequently."
When a reporter asked why the government chose a candidate who had been chargesheeted, Chidambaram said, "I respect your right to hold a point of view similarly you should also respect our point of view. The matter is actively subjudice."
Thomas' appointment as CVC has been challenged with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. So far, the hearings have left the government blushing, with the government scrambling to explain why the case against Thomas was overlooked.
At the last hearing, the court asked if the committee that selected Thomas had seen the documents relevant to the corruption charges against him. The Attorney General, GE Vahanvati, denied this.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
