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

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

The High Powered Committee failed to consider relevant material related to personal integrity and pending criminal proceedings against respondent no.2. The appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner was in contravention of the object and purpose of the 2003 Act, which requires integrity and independence in the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Centre for Public Interest Litigation; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: P.J. Thomas
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petitions allowed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner, Judicial Review, Integrity of Public Institutions
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Anti Corruption Law Appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner Judicial Review Integrity of Public Institutions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centre for Public Interest Litigation

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

P.J. Thomas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1), proviso of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
  2. 2 Duty of High Powered Committee in making recommendation for appointment
  3. 3 Binding effect of Prime Minister's advice to President regarding appointment

Ratio Decidendi

The High Powered Committee failed to consider relevant material related to personal integrity and pending criminal proceedings against respondent no.2. The appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner was in contravention of the object and purpose of the 2003 Act, which requires integrity and independence in the institution. The recommendation and appointment are non est in law and are quashed.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions allowed

Orders

  • Recommendation dated 3rd September, 2010 of the High Powered Committee recommending P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner is non est in law and quashed.
  • Impugned appointment of P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner is quashed.