CVC appointment under Supreme Court scanner

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s response to a PIL challenging the appointment of former Central Board of Direct Taxes head KV Chaudhary as chief vigilance commissioner and ex-CMD of Indian Bank TM Bhasin as vigilance commissioner in the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
A bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy also sought response from Chaudhary and Bhasin on the petition which cast doubts over their “integrity and reputation” and alleged that clouds over their integrity made them ineligible for the top posts in the CVC.
The petition, filed by NGO ‘Common Cause’ and members of civil society including former Navy chief Admiral L Ramdas, said Chaudhary’s actions as CBDT chief and adviser to the SC-appointed SIT on black money was under a cloud. The NGO also said Chaudhary’s name had cropped up in the Stockguru scam and also in the controversy relating to visitors to ex-CBI director Ranjit Sinha’s official residence.
READ ALSO: SC asks CVC about assistance in probe against ex-CBI chief
Although government agencies had given a clean chit to Chaudhary in both cases, the petitioners alleged that he did not meet the “impeccable integrity” requirement for the CVC post and termed the procedure to select him as arbitrary and illegal.
They also alleged that Chaudhary had abused his position as member (investigation) in CBDT to under-assess income of a company owned by the controversial Ponty Chadha by Rs 234 crore.
Questioning Bhasin’s credentials, the NGO alleged that the CVC had in 2013 indicted him, when he was serving as CMD of Indian Bank, for forging and tampering with the appraisal report of the then general manager of the bank.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, asked the bench to direct the Centre to place before it files relating to minutes of the meeting for selection of CVC and VC. He said the court should examine all records placed before the selection committee headed by the Prime Minister and also records of the cases against Chaudhary and Bhasin.
READ ALSO: Jethmalani voices reservation against Chaudhary as CVC
“Non-production of serious adverse material and representations against them would vitiate the appointment process and in case the said material was produced and despite that the appointment was made, then that appointment would be mala fide, arbitrary and illegal, as per the judgment of this court,” Bhushan said.
The court, however, asked Bhushan to make an application for this purpose. Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani joined Bhushan and demanded the documents. The bench asked the Centre and other respondents to file their responses in four weeks and posted the matter for hearing after five weeks.