Corrupt Chief Vigilance Commissioner?

The UPA is self-contradicting its dhramic philosophy. The promise made by Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh duo in 2004 was to stem the rot of corruption and provide good governance. Day in and day out it seems this duo will outlive the previous corrupt regimes in the country. May be they are not corrupt personally. Failure to the control the other’s corruption when they are in power to control will amount to personal corruption. This inefficiency is worst than the personal corruption. Worst of all the tragedies happened in the UPA governments in 2004 and 2oo9 afterwards it the appointment of P.J.Thomas as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. The tainted bureaucrat whose hands are full of bribes and black marks were appointed as the CVC despite opposition from Sushma Swaraj during the selection committee meeting. The invitation to the leader of opposition during the selection process was mere formality than any sincerity. Now the onus is on Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi to clean the dirty linen which they got in the government’s hands.


PJ.Thomas, the former telecom secretary was appointed as the CVC to cover up the 2G and other telecom scams. Who was behind his appointment? Surely there was extra Prime Ministerial and Congress presidential authorities in this matter.


The Deccan Chronicle writes on 24th November 2010


At a time when UPA-2 finds itself in political difficulty following revelations over the 2G spectrum allocations, the Supreme Court has embarrassed the Manmohan Singh government by questioning its decision to appoint P.J. Thomas as chief vigilance commissioner, although it appears the government did so in good faith. From the arguments advanced by attorney-general Goolam E. Vahanvati in the court on Monday, the government appeared to believe it had the right man for the job, even though his name figures in a chargesheet filed in Kerala in 2000 as an accused in a case of import of palmolein. There is an impression that the case has not moved forward, in the past 10 years, for reasons that appear partly technical, and partly an attempt on the part of the CPI(M) to embarrass the Congress during whose tenure the import was made. The attorney-general has also argued that there was no case involving the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr Thomas. He noted that when the then chief secretary was empanelled to become parliamentary affairs secretary, his name was cleared by the then CVC. The final point in Mr Vahanvati’s brief is that the former chief election commissioner, Mr J.M. Lyngdoh, had once noted in an annual confidential report on Mr Thomas’ performance that he possessed “integrity beyond doubt”. The irony is that the questioning of Mr Thomas’ appointment as the new CVC has come in a pubic interest litigation case filed by Mr Lyngdoh and others.
To be fair, the first instance we should perhaps suspend judgement on Mr Thomas’ presumed guilt. We should also hope that the system is made to improve so that no case is permitted to drag out so long. All the same, given the totality of circumstances, it is clear that appointing Mr Thomas as CVC has been singularly unwise. The most important reason is suggested by the key question posed by the Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia. The CJI has maintained quite appropriately that since the CVC remains an accused in a listed case, he will not be in a position to issue notice to a party in matters brought before him, rendering him effectively “non-functional”. This makes eminent sense. It is a pity that the attorney-general did not grasp this, especially when he is dealing with as sensitive a constitutional appointment as that of the CVC, whose role is decide corruption matters concerning senior officials.
To make matters worse, the attorney-general argued with uncommon foolishness that if the idea of “impeccable integrity” were to be strictly adopted, key judicial appointments might come under scrutiny. This would sound like a threat to most people. Indeed, the attorney-general must be asked why the Indian citizen must not aspire to have only those of “impeccable integrity” holding top administrative and constitutional positions. This is among the reasons why the BJP’s Ms Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition, had opposed Mr Thomas’ appointment. The CVC is chosen by a troika comprising the Prime Minister, Union home minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Overlooking Ms Swaraj’s objections clearly looks like a mistake and amounts to the disregard of a well-conceived institution.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: