New Delhi: 02 July :- The Supreme Court has refused to cancel the appointments of CVC and VC. The court said that we did not find any basis in the petition so that it can be canceled. On the other hand, the plea of Common Cause and Center for Integrity and Governance has been rejected. In fact, the Supreme Court had to decide the verdict in this matter whether the person appointed on the posts of CVC and Vigilance Commissioners meets the criteria for having an unblemished image.
Common Cause, CVC V. Chaudhary and Vigilance Commissioner V. T.M. Bhasin had challenged the appointment and said that these appointments are illegal because they are accused of working against institutional integrity against them. During the hearing of the case, the Supreme Court had said that he would not consider the aspect of political favoritism but will only examine whether a person appointed on the posts of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, CVC and Vigilance Commissioners, fulfills the criteria for having an unblemished image or No
The Supreme Court had heard a petition filed in 2015, in which challenging the appointment of CVC KV Chaudhary and Vigilance Commissioner VC T. M. Bhasin was challenged by alleging that they did not have a clean record and during their appointment the abdication process was followed. Has been done The CVC also investigated the charges against them in 2013.
Chaudhary was appointed as CVC on June 6, 2015 while Bhasin was appointed VC on June 11, 2015. The court had asked Attorney General K. Venugopal whether the decision taken by the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and Leader of Opposition Selection Committee was made unanimously. Venugopal said yes, it was an administrative decision. During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Kaman Kaj, alleged that despite several memorandums against Choudhary, the government appointed him as CVC because he was his favorite candidate.
However, the court said that the question in front of him is whether the person appointed on these posts is of immaculate image or not. The bench said that the question is of immaculate image, not political favoritism. The person should be of immaculate image. We will look at this aspect. The Center argued that in such cases, the extension of judicial review is very limited. On this, the court said that the matter relates to the appointment of the CVC and the VC and there is some material in which there are certain comments about the special gentleman.