CENTRE FOR PIL & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 03-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
(2011] 4 S.C.R. 445 
CENTRE FOR PIL & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 348 of 2010) 
MARCH 3, 2011 
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003: 
Object of its enactment - Discussed. 
s.4(1), proviso - Appointment of respondent no.2 (Shri 
A 
B 
c 
P.J. Thomas) as Central Vigilance Commissioner on 
recommendation of the High Powered Committee - Held: Is 
non est in law and is quashed. 
D 
s.4(1), proviso - Recommendation under - Primary 
consideration for making the recommendation - Duty of the 
High Powered Committee (HPC) - Held: If the institutional 
competency would be adversely affected by pending criminal 
E 
proceedings against the candidate and by that touchstone the 
candidate stands disqualified then it is the duty of the HPC 
not to recommend such a candidate - While making the 
recommendation, the HPC performs a statutory duty -
The 
word 'recommendation' in the proviso stands for an informed 
F 
decision to be taken by the HPC on the basis of a 
consideration of relevant material keeping in mind the 
purpose, object and policy of the 2003 Act - The object and 
purpose of the 2003 Act is to have an integrity Institution like 
eve which is in-charge of vigilance administration and which 
G 
constitutes an anti-corruption mechanism - The 2003 Act 
confers autonomy and independence to the institution of eve 
so that the Central Vigilance Commissioner could act without 
fear or favour - The institution is more important than an 
445 
H 
• 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A individual - While making the recommendations, the service 
conditions of the candidate being a public servant or civil 
servant in the past is not the sole criteria - The HPC must 
also take into consideration the question of institutional 
competency into account - The HPC has, therefore, to take 
B into consideration the values, independence and impartiality 
of the Institution - In the instant case, this vital aspect was not 
taken into account by the HPC while recommending the name 
of respondent no.2 (Shri P.J. Thomas) as Central Vigilance 
Commissioner - The entire emphasis was placed by the 
c eve, the DoPT and the HPC only on the bio-data of the 
empanelled candidates - None of these authorities looked 
at the matter from the larger perspective of institutional 
integrity including institutional competence and functioning of 
CVC - All the notings of DoPT observed that penalty 
0 proceedings may be initiated against respondent no.2 -
However, such notings were not considered in juxtaposition 
with the clearance of CVC - Even in the brief submitted to 
the 1-IPC by DoPT, there was no reference to the said notings 
- In the C. V. of respondent no.2 also there was no reference 
E to the earlier notings of DoPT recommending initiation of 
penalty proceedings against him -
Therefore, even on 
personal integrity, the HPC did not consider the relevant 
material and, therefore, the recommendation of name of 
respondent no. 2 was non est in law - Penal Code, 1860 -
s.120-B - Prevention of Corruption Act - s.13(1)(d). 
F 
s.4(1) - Advice tendered to the President by the Prime 
Minister regarding appointment of the Central Vigilance 
Commissioner - Binding effect of - Held: Central Vigilance 
Commissioner is appointed uls.4(1) by the President by 
G warrant under her hand and seal after obtaining the 
recommendation of the HPC, consisting of the Prime Minister 
as {he Chairperson and two other Members - Although under 
the Act, the Central Vigilance Commissioner is appointed 
after obtaining the recommendation of the HPC, such 
H recommendation has got to be accepted by the Prime 
• CENTRE FOR PIL & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & 
447 
ANR. 
Minister, who is the concerned authority u/Article 77(3), and A 
if such recommendation is forwarded to the President ul 
Article 7 4, then the President is bound to act in accordance 
with the advice tendered - Further under the Rules of 
Business the concerned authority is the Prime Minister -
Therefore, the advice tendered to the President by the Prime 
B 
Minister regarding appointment of the Central Vigilance 
Commissioner will be binding on the President - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Articles 7 4, 77. 
s.4(1), proviso, s.4(2) - Unanimity or consensus uls.4(2) 
- Held: Under proviso to s.4(1), Parliament has put its faith 
C 
in the HPC consisting of the Prime Minister, the Minister for 
Home Affairs and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.