- (1.) The two writ petitions filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India give rise to a substantial question of law and of public importance as to the legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas (respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 348 of 2010) as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 ("2003 Act" for short).
(2.) Government is not accountable to the courts in respect of policy decisions. However, they are accountable for the legality of such decisions. While deciding this case, we must keep in mind the difference between legality and merit as also between judicial review and merit review. On 3rd September, 2010, the High Powered Committee ("HPC" for short), duly constituted under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act, had recommended the name of Shri P.J. Thomas for appointment to the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner. The validity of this recommendation falls for judicial scrutiny in this case. If a duty is cast under the proviso to Section 4(1) on the HPC to recommend to the President the name of the selected candidate, the integrity of that decision making process is got to ensure that the powers are exercised for the purposes and in the manner envisaged by the said Act, otherwise such recommendation will have no existence in the eye of law. Clarification
(3.) At the very outset we wish to clarify that in this case our judgment is strictly confined to the legality of the recommendation dated 3rd September, 2010 and the appointment based thereon. As of date, Shri P.J. Thomas is Accused No. 8 in criminal case CC 6 of 2003 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram with respect to the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) [hereinafter referred to as the "Palmolein case"]. According to the petitioners herein, Shri P.J. Thomas allegedly has played a big part in the cover-up of the 2G spectrum allocation which matter is subjudice. Therefore, we make it clear that we do not wish to comment in this case on the pending cases and our judgment herein should be strictly understood to be under judicial review on the legality of the appointment of respondent No. 2 and any reference in our judgment to the Palmolein case should not be understood as our observations on merits of that case. Facts;