Delhi University students perform a dance during a flash mob protest against corruption in the country, in New Delhi, January 27. (AP Photo)
NEW Delhi, January 27 (PTI): The government today told the Supreme Court that the issue of charge sheet against CVC P J Thomas in a corruption case and sanction granted by 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 charge sheet 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 whether the material relating to the charge sheet 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 charge sheet and the sanction were brought before the committee or not.
“We want to know whether relevant material were brought before the committee and whether these documents were brought were before it,” the bench also comprising K S Radhakrishnan and Swantanter Kumar said. The apex court bench said it wanted to know if correct procedure was followed in the appointment of the CVC. “We want to know whether correct procedure was followed or the procedure was vitiated,” it said and asked, “How many people were in the zone of selection for the CVC?” It also said it wanted to know about 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. The bench told counsel Prashant Bhushan, who is representing petitioner NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which has moved the court questioning the legality of the CVC’s appointment, 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 relating 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 the Leader of the 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 objection 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 objection 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.
“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 whether the material relating to the charge sheet 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 charge sheet and the sanction were brought before the committee or not.
“We want to know whether relevant material were brought before the committee and whether these documents were brought were before it,” the bench also comprising K S Radhakrishnan and Swantanter Kumar said. The apex court bench said it wanted to know if correct procedure was followed in the appointment of the CVC. “We want to know whether correct procedure was followed or the procedure was vitiated,” it said and asked, “How many people were in the zone of selection for the CVC?” It also said it wanted to know about 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. The bench told counsel Prashant Bhushan, who is representing petitioner NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which has moved the court questioning the legality of the CVC’s appointment, 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 relating 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 the Leader of the 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 objection 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 objection 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.
Govt speaking untruth, will approach SC: Sushma
NEW Delhi, January 27 (agencies): Slamming the government, BJP leader Sushma Swaraj termed as “untruth” its claim that the charges against CVC P J Thomas was not brought before the high-powered selection committee of which she was a member and said she would approach the Supreme Court in this regard. “It is not at all true. In fact, it is a mis-statement. I personally brought this fact to the notice of the Prime Minister and Home Minister in the meeting itself even though they persisted with this appointment,” Swaraj said here.
The leader of opposition in Lok Sabha told reporters that she had always stayed away from judicial proceedings but “now I have decided to file my affidavit before the Supreme court”. Swaraj, who had put on record her dissent to the selection of Thomas as CVC by the three-member committee, was reacting to the affidavit filed by attorney general G E Vahanvati in the Supreme Court today that the panel was not aware of the charges in the Palmolein export case pending against him in Kerala. The main opposition party had even boycotted the CVC’s swearing-in ceremony a few months back as a mark of protest.
“The government is speaking one untruth after another untruth. So I have decided to file a detailed affidative on the issue,” Swaraj said. She asserted that her main obection to Thomas’ appointment was that there was chargesheet against him in a corruption case and sanction was granted by Kerala government for his prosecution. An NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, and others had challenged Thomas’ appointment as the CVC, citing the Pamolein import corruption case in which the top ranking official is an accused.
The leader of opposition in Lok Sabha told reporters that she had always stayed away from judicial proceedings but “now I have decided to file my affidavit before the Supreme court”. Swaraj, who had put on record her dissent to the selection of Thomas as CVC by the three-member committee, was reacting to the affidavit filed by attorney general G E Vahanvati in the Supreme Court today that the panel was not aware of the charges in the Palmolein export case pending against him in Kerala. The main opposition party had even boycotted the CVC’s swearing-in ceremony a few months back as a mark of protest.
“The government is speaking one untruth after another untruth. So I have decided to file a detailed affidative on the issue,” Swaraj said. She asserted that her main obection to Thomas’ appointment was that there was chargesheet against him in a corruption case and sanction was granted by Kerala government for his prosecution. An NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, and others had challenged Thomas’ appointment as the CVC, citing the Pamolein import corruption case in which the top ranking official is an accused.
