Common Cause (a Regd. Society) v. Union of India .

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

2 July 2018

Case no.

W.P.(C) No.-000505-000505 - 2015

Bench

Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha

Author

Arun Mishra

Facts

The petitions were filed by Common Cause (a registered society) and the Center for Integrity Governance and Training in Vigilance Administration. The Union of India appointed Mr. K.V. Chowdary as CVC on June 6, 2015, and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as VC on June 11, 2015, for a term of four years. The petitioners contended that the appointments were illegal due to a lack of adherence to the principles of integrity as outlined in previous Supreme Court rulings. The court had previously allowed the appointments to proceed under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, pending the outcome of the petitions.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioners argued that the CVC is a crucial anti-corruption body in India, especially in the absence of a Lokpal. They claimed that the appointments of Chowdary and Bhasin were void due to a failure to meet the standards of "impeccable integrity" required for such positions, as established in the Vineet Narain and Centre for PIL cases. The court addressed these arguments by reiterating the statutory framework governing the appointments and the integrity of the selection process.

Respondent Arguments

The respondents, representing the Union of India, defended the appointments by asserting that they complied with the statutory requirements of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. They argued that the selection process involved a committee comprising high-ranking officials, ensuring that the appointments were made based on merit and integrity. The court found these arguments compelling, noting that the statutory provisions were followed.

Precedents considered

The court cited two key precedents

• Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India (1998): This case established the need for the CVC to have statutory status and emphasized the importance of selecting individuals of impeccable integrity.
• Centre for PIL & Anr. v. Union of India (2011): This judgment quashed a previous CVC appointment, highlighting that the decision-making process must adhere to the statutory framework and be subject to judicial review.

Legal principles

The court considered several legal principles, including

• The requirement for appointments to the CVC and VC to be made by a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, and Leader of the Opposition.
• The necessity for candidates to possess impeccable integrity and relevant experience in vigilance matters.
• The principle that the selection process must be transparent and subject to judicial scrutiny.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court's rationale centered on the adherence to the statutory provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. It emphasized that the selection committee's recommendations were valid as long as they followed the prescribed legal framework. The court also noted that the integrity of the individuals appointed was a matter of public interest, but the process itself was deemed lawful.

Outcome

The Supreme Court upheld the appointments of Mr. K.V. Chowdary and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as CVC and VC, respectively. The court did not find sufficient grounds to quash the appointments and emphasized the importance of following the statutory process. There were no specific instructions for an appeal process mentioned in the judgment.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the importance of statutory compliance in the appointment of key positions within anti-corruption bodies in India. It highlights the balance between public interest in maintaining integrity in such appointments and the legal frameworks that govern them. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that appointments are made transparently and based on merit.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)