SEARCH

News » National

Updated: January 28, 2011 08:16 IST

Full facts about Thomas were not placed before panel: Vahanvati

J. Venkatesan
Comment (5)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
CVC P.J. Thomas addresses the media after attending a seminar in New Delhi on Thursday. Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati has come out with a clarification after his submissions on the appointment of Thomas as CVC were contested by BJP leader Sushma Swaraj.
PTI CVC P.J. Thomas addresses the media after attending a seminar in New Delhi on Thursday. Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati has come out with a clarification after his submissions on the appointment of Thomas as CVC were contested by BJP leader Sushma Swaraj.

Was palmolein case file given to selection committee, asks court

The Department of Personnel did not place full facts about P.J. Thomas before the high-power committee that finalised his appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), Attorney-General (AG) G.E. Vahanvati told the Supreme Court on Thursday. The department did not mention about a charge sheet that was pending against him in a palmolein import case and that the Kerala government had granted initial sanction for his prosecution, the AG said.

Mr. Vahanvati made the submission before a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.H. Kapadia and Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar when it wanted to know whether full facts were placed before the committee for its consideration before the selection was made.

The committee was headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and had Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj as members.

Earlier, counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation that has challenged Mr. Thomas' appointment, argued that he did not fulfil the criterion of “impeccable integrity” as per the Vineet Narain judgment. For, he was facing a charge sheet in the palmolein case.

At this juncture, the CJI told the AG: “We want to know whether the papers and the file pertaining to the palmolein case pending against Mr. Thomas, request for sanction and subsequent correspondence were circulated before the committee members. If the full facts were not placed before the committee will it not vitiate the process of appointment?”

The AG said: “The papers and file were not so circulated. 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 biodata [of Mr. Thomas] did not reflect this aspect before the committee. This, however, will not vitiate his appointment as it was in accordance with Section 3 of the CVC Act.”

When Mr. Bhushan submitted that Ms. Swaraj orally raised at a committee meeting the issue of the pending case against Mr. Thomas, the AG said the note on the committee proceedings showed that she merely endorsed, “I disagree.”

He said: “It is not possible for me to tell the court what was or was not discussed among the members of the committee at the meeting.”

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Thomas, said the CVC, while granting clearance, found that no case was made out and the present Kerala government had appointed Mr. Thomas Chief Secretary.

The CJI said: “We are not going into the merits of the case. We only want to know whether relevant material was brought before the committee. What is the consequence of the committee not being made known the relevant facts? We want to know if the correct procedure was followed in the appointment of CVC or was it vitiated. We want to know how many people were in the zone of selection for the post of CVC; the details of the empanelment; what were the criteria for short-listing of such officers; the circumstances of sanction/charge sheet were against them or not; if there were only three officers, then on what grounds the other two were eliminated.”

On moral grounds CVC has to resign immediately.

from:  VGR Pillai.
Posted on: Jan 31, 2011 at 14:07 IST

sir,
it appears from the pleading details of this case that our attorney general G. VAHANAVATI is making all the attempts to dodge to the penetrating eyes of law. would our A.G. take a step back and accept his
mistake to let the people's trust strengthen in democratic governance of the country?

from:  bhanu pratap
Posted on: Jan 28, 2011 at 12:57 IST

People have lost faith in our supreme law enforcement bodies as corrupt people are rampant everywhere.

from:  Anilendran menon
Posted on: Jan 28, 2011 at 09:46 IST

In appointments and promotions in government and PSUs suppression of information to benefit the favourites of management and the politically important people is the norm.I have seen this through out my career.

from:  Atis D Mitra
Posted on: Jan 28, 2011 at 09:25 IST

"Full facts about Thomas were not placed before panel: Vahanvati", it is a bland lie by Vahanvati, a bland and intentional contempt of court. This man has also lied about 2G and CWG scandals. The court must take action against him, how a persons who lies intentionally can go scot-free ?

from:  BM
Posted on: Jan 28, 2011 at 06:53 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Swachh Bharat Mission

Tweet your opinions with #THCleanIndia. Take a look at how the mission has taken shape. Read more»

International

Tamil Nadu

Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka

Kerala


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in National

Chopper scam: Part of bribe went to Khaitan's wife, says ED

"Ritu Khaitan was also beneficiary to the proceeds of crime which came into O.P. Khaitan & Co...," the Enforcement Directorate charge sheet said. »