CVC : THE Appointment was Illegal
TODAY perhaps the worst day of UPA II government. Since independence, for the first time the Supreme Court quashed the appointment of one of the top most constitutional posts. The Court declared illegal the appointment of Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) Mr. PJ Thomas on a number of grounds.
THOMAS, a former secretary in the ministry of telecom, was appointed CVC disregarding the norms set for the post again by the Court.
THE institution of CVC was established by an order of the Supreme Court according to which CVC is appointed by a high power committee comprising of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha. The first CVC Mr. N. Vitthal was appointed by NDA government in 1998. The government selected the panel of three candidates and the leader of opposition Mr. Sharad Pawar was given the opportunity to tick any of the three names. But in the case of Thomas, the government was adamant on appointing him disregarding the objections of Mrs Swaraj, the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, regarding his tainted past as a case of corruption in the purchase of palmolein was pending against him in court since 1991. The government was bent on appointing him on the very day despite the plea of Mrs Swaraj to look into the pending case against him. Following Thomas' appointment a group of eight eminent citizens went to Supreme Court seeking annulment of his appointment.
Today, Mr. Abhiskek Manu Singhvi, the spokesperson of Congress tried to underplay the Supreme Court judgement that an error of law had been committed and the Supreme Court has rectified it. Therefore, the issue must not be politicised. The opposition, including the left, is however bent on seeking an explanation from the PM himself.
The opposition has charged that Mr. Thomas was appointed deliberately so that truth of 2G scam is never revealed.
A number of questions arise from this appointment as also the Judgement :
1. Why was the complete service record of Mr. Thomas not placed before the committee by the DoPT and other government departments?
2. What was the hurry to appoint Mr. Thomas?
3. Mrs. Swaraj had pleaded to appoint any of the other two candidates or select a new panel but the majority overruled. If the decision has to be taken by majority (endorsed by the Court in its judgement) and the majority has already selected candidate of its choice, what is the need for a panel to be selected from? Also, what is the need of having on panel the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha.
4. If it was a legal error, as said by Mr. Singhvi, why the government tried to defend Mr. Thomas in Court and why it did not accept its mistake?
5. Mr. Venu Gopal, the advocate of Mr. Thomas pleaded in the Court that Thomas' case was not the isolated one. There are 153 MP with tainted record and some of them are ministers. Will the government initiate the process of cleansing the system and overhauling it so that in future no one can point a finger in any selection or election?
6. In all other cases of corruption PM showed his ignorance while this appointment was made by him. Now will he stop saying the Cesar's wife must be above suspicion?
THE government made some attempts that Mr. Thomas resign before the Supreme Court pronounces its judgement. Though he had his own logic in not following advice, it was his continuance in the office that resulted in the judgement; otherwise the UPA would be continuing with its own whims without scant regard for the institutions and the law.
THOMAS, a former secretary in the ministry of telecom, was appointed CVC disregarding the norms set for the post again by the Court.
THE institution of CVC was established by an order of the Supreme Court according to which CVC is appointed by a high power committee comprising of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha. The first CVC Mr. N. Vitthal was appointed by NDA government in 1998. The government selected the panel of three candidates and the leader of opposition Mr. Sharad Pawar was given the opportunity to tick any of the three names. But in the case of Thomas, the government was adamant on appointing him disregarding the objections of Mrs Swaraj, the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, regarding his tainted past as a case of corruption in the purchase of palmolein was pending against him in court since 1991. The government was bent on appointing him on the very day despite the plea of Mrs Swaraj to look into the pending case against him. Following Thomas' appointment a group of eight eminent citizens went to Supreme Court seeking annulment of his appointment.
Today, Mr. Abhiskek Manu Singhvi, the spokesperson of Congress tried to underplay the Supreme Court judgement that an error of law had been committed and the Supreme Court has rectified it. Therefore, the issue must not be politicised. The opposition, including the left, is however bent on seeking an explanation from the PM himself.
The opposition has charged that Mr. Thomas was appointed deliberately so that truth of 2G scam is never revealed.
A number of questions arise from this appointment as also the Judgement :
1. Why was the complete service record of Mr. Thomas not placed before the committee by the DoPT and other government departments?
2. What was the hurry to appoint Mr. Thomas?
3. Mrs. Swaraj had pleaded to appoint any of the other two candidates or select a new panel but the majority overruled. If the decision has to be taken by majority (endorsed by the Court in its judgement) and the majority has already selected candidate of its choice, what is the need for a panel to be selected from? Also, what is the need of having on panel the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha.
4. If it was a legal error, as said by Mr. Singhvi, why the government tried to defend Mr. Thomas in Court and why it did not accept its mistake?
5. Mr. Venu Gopal, the advocate of Mr. Thomas pleaded in the Court that Thomas' case was not the isolated one. There are 153 MP with tainted record and some of them are ministers. Will the government initiate the process of cleansing the system and overhauling it so that in future no one can point a finger in any selection or election?
6. In all other cases of corruption PM showed his ignorance while this appointment was made by him. Now will he stop saying the Cesar's wife must be above suspicion?
THE government made some attempts that Mr. Thomas resign before the Supreme Court pronounces its judgement. Though he had his own logic in not following advice, it was his continuance in the office that resulted in the judgement; otherwise the UPA would be continuing with its own whims without scant regard for the institutions and the law.
Comments
Post a Comment