PJ Thomas has been made chief vigilance commissioner despite the apex court questioning his appointment. He is accused in a graft case. But our Attorney General has gone on record saying that “impeccable integrity” is not an eligibility criterion for appointment of the CVC. Go figure

The current CVC of India, PJ Thomas, has been appointed to this post-when allegations of corruption against him have not yet been cleared.

The process of his appointment was itself controversial.

Moneylife has in its possession documents detailing the coronation of Mr Thomas, made available to us by activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, who obtained them through the RTI (Right To Information) Act. The documents reveal the bureaucratic approvals leading up to the appointment of Mr Thomas.

On 3rd September, prime minister Manmohan Singh, home minster P Chidambaram and Sushma Swaraj of the BJP (in her capacity as leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha) met to finalise the CVC's appointment. Ms Swaraj disagreed to the appointment of Mr Thomas as CVC, but the detailed proceedings of the same have not been provided to Mr Agrawal, apart from the note recording the Opposition leader's dissent.

On 9th November, the Supreme Court asked the already-beleaguered Centre whether the criterion of being an "outstanding civil servant" was met when Mr Thomas was appointed as CVC.

Now why is Mr Thomas in the eye of a storm? He was secretary, department of telecommunications, during A Raja's now-infamous tenure.  
 
In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General had exposed a case of palmolein imports into Kerala from Malaysia during the early 1990s; Mr Thomas is an accused in this scandal. It involves the alleged import of this commodity at an exorbitant rate, causing a loss of Rs2 crore to the state exchequer.

On 17th December, the court of the enquiry commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) at Thiruvananthapuram will conduct proceedings into the case.

With due respect to the various statutory bodies involved in the appointment of the current CVC, does Mr Thomas fit the bill?
On top of this, the Centre (on 23rd November) defended the selection of the CVC before the Supreme Court (SC) by stating that "impeccable integrity" was not an eligibility criterion for appointment of the CVC.

These words were from Attorney General (AG) GE Vahanvati before an SC bench comprising Chief Justice SH Kapadia and Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar.

The AG made this statement after being constantly grilled by the apex bench on how an accused could get the top post of a CVC.

We needn't add anything more. "Impeccable integrity" is not needed if you want to head the topmost corruption watchdog.

The only saving grace is: If we are already plumbing such abysmal moral depths, we just can't sink any deeper.

 
For the record, according to the official Indian government website (http://cvc.nic.in/CVC_power.htm), following are just a few 'powers and functions' of a CVC.

A CVC has the power:
1)      To undertake an inquiry or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any transaction in which a public servant working in any organisation, to which the executive control of the Government of India extends, is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner;

2)      To tender independent and impartial advice to the disciplinary and other authorities in disciplinary cases, involving vigilance angle at different stages i.e. investigation, inquiry, appeal, review etc.;

3)      To exercise a general check and supervision over vigilance and anti-corruption work in Ministries or Departments of the Govt of India and other organisations to which the executive power of the Union extends.

To cut a long job description short, the CVC has got to ensure that corruption is weeded out of the country.— Moneylife Digital Team