Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 02-07-2018 in case of petitioner name Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union of India & ORS.
| |

Judicial Review on Vigilance Commission Appointments: Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., delivered a significant judgment concerning the appointments of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and Vigilance Commissioner (VC). The petitioners challenged the appointments of Mr. K.V. Chowdary as CVC and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as VC, alleging violations of constitutional and institutional integrity. The Court upheld the appointments, ruling that the selection process was conducted fairly and transparently.

Background of the Case

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is a statutory body established under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, responsible for monitoring corruption-related matters in India. The CVC and VC positions are crucial in maintaining transparency and accountability in public administration. The appointments were challenged based on allegations of procedural lapses and ethical concerns.

Mr. K.V. Chowdary was appointed as CVC on June 6, 2015, and Mr. T.M. Bhasin was appointed as VC on June 11, 2015, for a tenure of four years. The petitioners contended that their selection violated the principles laid down in previous Supreme Court judgments, including Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1998) and Centre for PIL vs. Union of India (2011).

Legal Issues Considered

  • Whether the selection process adhered to the constitutional principles of integrity and transparency.
  • Whether the appointments violated institutional integrity norms as established in previous Supreme Court rulings.
  • The impact of the alleged misconduct of the appointed officials on their eligibility for the posts.
  • Whether judicial review could be exercised over the executive’s discretion in such appointments.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Arguments

  • The petitioners argued that the selection process lacked transparency and objectivity.
  • Mr. K.V. Chowdary had questionable links with Mr. Ranjit Sinha, the former CBI Director accused of interfering in corruption investigations.
  • The allegations against Mr. Chowdary included his purported involvement in shielding individuals accused in the HSBC black money case and the 2G spectrum scam.
  • Mr. T.M. Bhasin was found guilty of tampering with the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of a senior bank official, which constituted moral turpitude and violated ethical standards.
  • The appointments of these officials undermined the credibility of the Central Vigilance Commission and set a negative precedent.

Respondents’ Defense

  • The Union of India defended the appointments, stating that due process was followed in the selection process.
  • The Prime Minister-led selection committee had thoroughly vetted the candidates and found them suitable for the positions.
  • Mr. Chowdary’s meetings with Mr. Ranjit Sinha were official and part of routine investigative procedures.
  • Mr. Bhasin’s case regarding the APAR was an administrative matter and did not amount to criminal misconduct.
  • The allegations raised were speculative and lacked concrete evidence to warrant judicial intervention.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the case in light of past precedents and relevant statutory provisions. The Court observed:

“The process of selection of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioner has been undertaken in accordance with the law, and no illegality has been demonstrated by the petitioners.”

Addressing the allegations against Mr. Chowdary, the Court ruled:

“There is no substantive material on record to establish that the appointed CVC was complicit in shielding accused individuals in corruption cases. Mere allegations based on conjecture and assumptions cannot form the basis for quashing an appointment.”

Regarding the accusations against Mr. Bhasin, the Court noted:

“The findings in the APAR tampering case do not amount to an act of moral turpitude. An administrative lapse in appraisal records does not disqualify a candidate from holding a statutory office.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the appointments, stating:

  • The selection process followed the due procedure and was conducted with fairness and objectivity.
  • No credible evidence of wrongdoing was presented against Mr. K.V. Chowdary or Mr. T.M. Bhasin.
  • Judicial review could not be used to interfere in executive decisions unless there was clear arbitrariness or illegality.
  • The appointments were valid and binding.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces several important legal principles:

  • Institutional Integrity: The ruling clarifies that mere allegations cannot override a candidate’s credentials unless supported by concrete evidence.
  • Judicial Review Limitations: Courts should not intervene in executive decisions unless clear procedural violations are established.
  • Transparency in Appointments: The decision affirms that the executive’s discretion in selecting high-ranking officials should be exercised with due diligence.
  • Reinforcing Vigilance Institutions: By upholding the appointments, the Court ensured the continuity of functioning in the Central Vigilance Commission.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the delicate balance between judicial review and executive discretion in appointments to statutory bodies. By rejecting the challenge to the appointments, the Court reaffirmed the principle that transparency and fairness must be demonstrated but cannot be assumed absent concrete proof. The verdict serves as a crucial precedent for future challenges regarding appointments to key government institutions.


Petitioner Name: Common Cause (A Regd. Society) & ORS..
Respondent Name: Union of India & ORS..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 02-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Common Cause (A Regd vs Union of India & ORS Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-07-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category

Similar Posts