Axed by the Supreme Court for his tainted past, Chief Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas is likely to file a review petition and challenge the apex court judgement striking down his appointment as the country’s corruption watchdog chief, reports said on Friday.
Thomas’ lawyer Wills Mathews told reporters that they are now studying the judgement and will take a decision after carefully perusing it.
Mathews said Thomas has not resigned yet, and will take a final decision after studying the judgement.
“We have to study it in totality. We are still studying the document. We cannot make a comment after studying half of it,” said Mathews.
In a historic judgement that came as a jolt to the Prime Minister, the
Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the apppointment of PJ Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) of India, the top corruption watchdog of the nation chosen by a panel headed by the PM.
The CVC was chosen by a panel headed by none other than Singh himself, overruling the dissent by Opposition leader Sushma Swaraj.
The Prime Minister said he will make a statement in Parliament on the issue.
The government, represented by Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily, said it respects the verdict and will make rectifications, while the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sushma Swaraj, who had opposed the selection of Thomas, said the dignity of the office of CVC has been restored.
Earlier reports on Thursday said Thomas had resigned after the judgement that held his appointment illegal and void.
The judgement was passed by a three-judge bench of the apex court headed by the Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia.
The court acted on a petition challenging appointment of Thomas as the country’s chief corruption watchdog since his past records on
corruption issues were not clean.
The court also found fault in the committee of the Prime Minister that
appointed Thomas and said the government should have gone beyond his bio-data.
“While quashing the appointment of Thomas as CVC, the Supreme Court
said, before his selection the high powered committee must have ensured not only of impeccability and integrity of the person but also that the CVC can function as the premier anti-corruption institution,”
said Prashant Bhushan, the civil rights lawyer representing the NGO that petitioned against the appointment.
The judgement came in response to a petition by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) challenging the appointment as he was charge-sheeted in an oil import case in Kerala in the 1990s, something
he had not been mentioned in his bio-data during the appointment.