Final verdict on PJ Thomas todayMarch 3rd, 2011 - 11:31 am ICT by ANI
New Delhi, Mar 3 (ANI): The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on petitions challenging the appointment of former bureaucrat PJ Thomas, who is facing a corruption case in a Kerala court, as Central Vigilance Commissioner, on Thursday.
The apex court had last month reserved its on petitions challenging the appointment of PJ Thomas.
A bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia reserved their orders after hearing arguments from various sides, including those by Prashant Bhushan, counsel for petitioner Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Thomas’ counsel KK Venugopal and Attorney General GE Vahanvati.
During the hearing, the bench wanted to know if the Leader of the Opposition can have a veto power in the process of CVC’s appointment.
Leader of the Opposition is one of the three members of the high-level panel headed by the Prime Minister and also comprising Union Home Minister, for the CVC’s appointment.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that the purpose of having the Leader of Opposition on the panel was to ensure that the government does not steamroll the selection process.
During the hearing, senior advocate Venugopal argued that irrespective of placement of all materials before the panel, the process of appointment will not be vitiated.
He said the consultation process is independent of the material placed before the panel.
He also questioned the court for holding a judicial review over the issue of appointee’s integrity saying whether the panel looked into it or not is not for the court to enquire into.
Venugopal said the panel functions as a recommending body on the basis of which the President appoints a person as the CVC and nobody knows what materials are considered.
He said the CVC’s appointment is not based on the recommendation by the Council of ministers and that an independent decision is taken by the panel.
He also said the President is the appointing authority and there was no challenge to this aspect.
He said Thomas’s appointment was justified as a Kerala Government order had clearly said that no case was made out against him in the Palmolein import case, nor was he under suspension and was appointed as the state government’s chief secretary.
Venugopal followed the government’s line of argument that there was also no challenge to the CVC clearance given to him on the basis of which he was appointed as secretary in the Central government.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation, an NGO and others had earlier challenged Thomas’s appointment as the CVC, quoting the Palmolein import corruption case in which Thomas is an accused. (ANI)
- CVC case: Supreme Court verdict on PJ Thomas tomorrow - Mar 02, 2011
- Supreme Court strikes down appointment of PJ Thomas - Mar 03, 2011
- CVC case: Supreme Court reserves verdict - Feb 10, 2011
- CVC Thomas resigns after Supreme Court tells him to go - Mar 03, 2011
- BJP claims victory on PJ Thomas verdict, says Government 'stands exposed' - Mar 03, 2011
- Didn't know about chargesheet against Thomas, says former CVC - Mar 04, 2011
- Thomas ceases to be CVC, new CVC in due time: Moily - Mar 04, 2011
- Supreme Court reserves verdict on CVC's appointment - Feb 11, 2011
- Apex court questions Thomas' appointment procedure (Lead) - Jan 27, 2011
- Supreme Court questions Govt. on CVC appointment - Feb 03, 2011
- Integrity rule also for judicial posts, government tells court - Nov 22, 2010
- CPI-M to react over CVC fiasco after PM's statement in Parliament: Yechury - Mar 05, 2011
- President cancels Thomas's appointment as CVC - Mar 15, 2011
- CVC appointment was an error of judgement: Manmohan Singh - Mar 07, 2011
- 'I am still the CVC', says Thomas - Jan 31, 2011
Tags: apex court, appointee, appointing authority, bureaucrat, chief justice, consultation process, corruption case, council of ministers, final verdict, independent decision, judicial review, leader of opposition, leader of the opposition, panel functions, petitioner, public interest litigation, union home minister, venugopal, veto power, vigilance