New Delhi: 02 July :- The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict in this case whether the person appointed to the post of CVC and Vigilance Commissioners meets the criteria for having an unblemished image. Common Cause challenged the appointment of CVC KV Chaudhary and Vigilant Commissioner VC T.M. Bhasin.
During the previous hearing of this case, the Supreme Court had said that he will not consider the aspect of political favoritism, but will only check that the person appointed on the posts of Central Vigilance Commissioner, CVC and Vigilance Commissioners, fulfills the criteria for being unblemished. Does it or not? The Supreme Court had heard a petition filed in 2015, in which the appointment of CVC KV Chaudhary and Vigilance Commissioner VC T. M. Bhasin was challenged by alleging that they did not have a clear record and during their appointment the opaque process Has been followed.
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 the petitioner NGO Common Cause, 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 the question is of impeccable 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 is related to the appointment of the CVC and the VC and there is some material in which there are certain comments about the special gentleman.