The government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the issue of a chargesheet against Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas in a corruption case and the sanction granted by the Kerala government for his prosecution were not brought before the high-powered committee for selecting a candidate for the post.
This was stated by Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati before a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia, which wanted to know if the issue of sanction and the chargesheet against Thomas was presented before the three-member committee headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
"It was not before the committee. The material pertaining to the sanction for prosecution under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code was not before the committee. The bio-data did not reflect this aspect before the committee," the attorney general said.
The response of Vahanvati came on a question from the bench on whether the material related to the chargesheet and sanction was presented before the committee.
"We are not going into the merits of the case. We want to know whether the material pertaining to the chargesheet and the sanction were brought before the committee or not," said the apex court bench.
"We want to know whether relevant material was brought before the committee and whether these documents were brought before it," said the bench, also comprising K S Radhakrishnan and Swantanter Kumar.
"We want to know whether the correct procedure was followed or the procedure was vitiated," the bench said and asked, "How many people were in the zone of selection for the CVC?"
The bench also wanted to know the details of the empanelment.
The bench said it was making it clear that these aspects had to be examined at the very threshold.
"We want to know whether relevant material was considered by the high-powered committee at the threshold or not," it said.
"This is the priority on which we will go and not on the merits of the case," the bench said.
Prashant Bhushan is representing petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which has moved the court questioning the legality of the CVC's appointment. The bench told Bhushan that while the attorney general has answered its questions, he will have to now give his arguments on the selection issue.
"Now the AG has said. You tell us whether this vitiates the process for selection," the bench said.
Bhushan questioned the stand of the government on the issue of sanction, saying, "How will Thomas function as CVC when a sword is hanging over his head?"
The bench said it would also like to go into the files related to his appointment. The attorney general in turn said that all the four files will be placed before the court.
Bhushan had said that the files pertaining to the charge sheet against Thomas in a corruption case was not placed before the three-member panel, which also included Home Minister P Chidambaram and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj. The name of Thomas was opposed by Swaraj.
The CPIL and others have challenged Thomas' appointment as CVC, contending that he was considered for the crucial post despite objections from the leader of the Opposition.
The petitioners have sought the court's direction to declare Thomas' appointment as illegal, contending that there was violation of Section 4 of the CVC Act as the prime minister and the home minister insisted upon his name despite objections by the leader of the Opposition, which shows the government had decided in advance to appoint him.
The PIL has said Thomas could not be appointed as CVC on account of 'conflict of interest' as till recently he was serving as the secretary in telecom ministry and there was an allegation that he was involved in the 'cover-up' of the 2G spectrum scam, which, according to the petitioner, had caused a huge loss to the state exchequer.
