Summary
The Supreme Court declined to quash the 2015 appointments of K.V. Chowdary as Central Vigilance Commissioner and T.M. Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner. After examining the selection files and records concerning the allegations, it found that relevant complaints, agency inputs and clearances had been considered by the High Power Committee. No procedural illegality or extraneous influence warranted judicial interference. Review of the selection process did not permit the Court to substitute its preferred choice.
Issues
- Whether the appointments violated requirements of personal and institutional integrity through an unlawful selection process.
- Whether the complaints against Chowdary and the appraisal-report controversy involving Bhasin provided grounds to quash their appointments.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(3) and 4, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003The statutory eligibility and committee-based appointment framework informed review of the selection. Relevant experience, records, complaints and clearances were placed before the Committee, which unanimously recommended the appointments. (¶¶ 14, 59, 61, 64, 84, 85, 104)
- Section 9(3) and (4), Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003In the appraisal-report matter relied on against Bhasin, the Commission’s majority view prevailed over an individual Commissioner’s suggestion of criminal investigation. Subsequent consideration led to closure with a caution. (¶¶ 108, 109, 110, 111)
Held
- The integrity of a vigilance institution makes the personal integrity of its appointees relevant. Judicial review examines eligibility and legality, fairness and integrity of the decision-making process; it does not amount to a merits appeal over the executive’s choice. Extraneous considerations or breach of statute or rules can justify intervention. (¶¶ 60, 84, 85)
- The appointment records showed that complaints and factual inputs from the relevant agencies were before the Committee. Unlike the P.J. Thomas case, relevant adverse proceedings had not been withheld from its consideration. The Court found no illegality or extraneous influence affecting Chowdary’s selection. (¶¶ 61, 62, 64, 85, 86, 87, 104)
- The allegations concerning Chowdary’s meetings with the former CBI Director, Stock Guru, the tax assessment, HSBC accounts, 2G matters and Radia tapes were examined against the available records and inputs. They did not establish a basis for interference with the appointment; mere complaints could not be accepted at face value. (¶¶ 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 104, 113)
- The appraisal-report controversy concerning Bhasin had been considered and closed, with no finding of forgery or tampering and no major or minor penalty. The caution was not punishment. The relevant material and clearances were available to the Committee, and the appointment disclosed no procedural infirmity warranting judicial interference. (¶¶ 108, 109, 110, 111, 112)
- The Court declined to substitute its choice where the allegations had been examined and the selection process disclosed no ground for intervention. Its examination addressed whether a case for quashing these appointments had been made out. (¶¶ 66, 85, 104, 112, 113, 114)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of; no ground found to quash either appointment.