Judgment in the CVC case

               The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in WRIT PETITION (C) No. 348 & 355 OF 2010 on 3^rd March, 2011. The judgment delivered by Chief Justice of India, S.H.Kapadia, Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar held that ‘institutional integrity’ has to be maintained at all costs. Several Members of the IRI led by Shri J.M.Lyngdoh had filed this writ petition in the Supreme Court in October 2010.

The operative part of the judgment is as under:

(i)   In our judgment we have held that there is no prescription of unanimity or consensus under Section 4(2) of the 2003 Act. However, the question still remains as to what should be done in cases of difference of opinion amongst the Members of the High Powered Committee. As in the present case, if one Member of the Committee dissents that Member should give reasons for the dissent and if the majority disagrees with the dissent, the majority shall give reasons for overruling the dissent.

        This will bring about fairness-in-action. Since we have held that legality of the choice or selection is open to judicial review we are of the view that if the above methodology is followed transparency would emerge which would also maintain the integrity of the decision - making process.

(ii)    In future the zone of consideration should be in terms of Section 3(3) of the 2003 Act. It shall not be restricted to civil servants.

(iii)   All the civil servants and other persons empanelled shall be outstanding civil servants or persons of impeccable integrity.

(iv) The empanelment shall be carried out on the basis of rational criteria, which is to be reflected by recording of reasons and / or   noting   akin to   reasons   by   the empanelling authority.

 (v)  The empanelment shall be carried out by a person not below the rank of Secretary to the Government of India in the concerned Ministry.

(vi) The empanelling authority, while forwarding the names of the empanelled officers/persons, shall enclose complete information,   material   and   data   of   the    concerned officer /person, whether favourable or adverse. Nothing relevant or material should be withheld from the Selection Committee. It will not only be useful but would also serve larger public interest and enhance public confidence if the contemporaneous service record and acts of outstanding performance of the officer under consideration even with adverse remarks is specifically brought to the notice of the Selection Committee.

(vii) The    Selection   Committee     may    adopt   a   fair   and transparent process of consideration of the empanelled officers.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, it is declared that the recommendation dated 3rd September, 2010 of the High Powered Committee recommending the name of Shri P.J.Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act is non-est in law and, consequently, the impugned appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner is quashed.

For the full text of the judgment Click Here..