1. Challenge to the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioner under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, alleging lack of impeccable integrity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 679
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
COMMON CAUSE (A Regd. Society) & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 505 OF 2015
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 683 OF 2014
Decided on : 02-07-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review is confined to legality of decision making process, not the decision. Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but definitely accountable in respect of lawfulness/ legality of its decisions.
Judicial review is confined to legality of decision making process, not the decision. Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but definitely accountable in respect of lawfulness/ legality of its decisions.
Subject
Administrative Law - Appointment of Public Officials
Act Referred
ALL INDIA SERVICES PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORT RULES: R.5(7), R.7
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION ACT: S.4(1), S.3(3)
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES RULES: R.9(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16
INCOME TAX ACT: S.131, S.279, S.277
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.182
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.13(1)(d)
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION ACT: S.4(1), S.3(3)
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES RULES: R.9(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16
INCOME TAX ACT: S.131, S.279, S.277
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.182
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.13(1)(d)
Headnote
Administration of justice – Judicial review – Selection and appointment of CVC and VC – Review confined to legality of decision making process – Government not accountable to the courts for the choice made – But accountable to the courts in respect of lawfulness/ legality of its decisions – Instantly selection committee looking into every aspect and all allegations and making the selections in a manner which cannot be faulted – Petitioners making general and unsubstantiated allegations – No interference warranted. (Para 85, 113)
(1998) 1 SCC 226; (2011) 4 SCC 1; (2000) 3 SCC 761 – Referred
Facts of the case:
In this petition a prayer has been made to issue an appropriate writ quashing the appointment of Mr. K.V. Chowdary, Central Vigilance Commissioner (‘CVC’) and Mr. T.M. Bhasin, Vigilance Commissioner (‘VC’).
The main ground urged to quash the appointment is that it is illegal and void as there is violation of principles of impeccable integrity and institutional integrity laid down in the judgments of this Court.
Finding of the Court:
Appointment of respondent no. 2 and 3 is not amenable to interference in judicial review.
Result: Petitions disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege appointments are void due to lack of impeccable integrity and non-transparent selection; respondents contend the process was fair and allegations were unsubstantiated. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
3. The selection process was transparent, and the High Power Committee unanimously decided on appointments after considering all representations and clearances from intelligence and investigative agencies. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 )
4. Judicial review of appointments is limited to the legality of the decision-making process and requisite qualifications, not the merit of the executive's choice. (Para 84 , 85 )
5. Appointments of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioner are upheld; writ petitions are disposed of. (Para 113 , 114 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review regarding the appointment of high-ranking officials?
Judicial review is confined to whether the incumbent possesses the requisite qualifications and whether the procedure adopted was fair, just, and reasonable. The court cannot sit in judgment over the executive's choice unless the decision is influenced by extraneous considerations or made in breach of statute. (Para 84 , 85 )
7. What is the difference between judicial review and merit review in the context of official appointments?
Judicial review examines the legality and integrity of the decision-making process, whereas merit review evaluates the suitability or comparative merit of the candidate. Courts exercise judicial review, not merit review, unless the appointment is contrary to statutory provisions. (Para 84 , 85 )
8. How is the requirement of impeccable integrity evaluated during the appointment process for the Central Vigilance Commission?
It is evaluated by the Selection Committee through the scrutiny of service records, vigilance clearances, and inputs from agencies like the Intelligence Bureau and CBI. If the committee considers all material and unanimously finds the candidate suitable, the court generally does not interfere. (Para 64 , 87 , 112 )
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The petition has been filed by the Common Cause (a registered Society) and others purportedly in public interest, a prayer has been made to issue an appropriate writ quashing the appointment of Mr. K.V. Chowdary, Central Vigilance Commissioner (in short ‘CVC’) and Mr. T.M. Bhasin, Vigilance Commissioner (in short, ‘VC’). The Union of India had appointed Mr. K.V. Chowdary as CVC on 6.6.2015 and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as VC on 11.6.2015 for a period of four years. The main ground urged to quash the appointment is that it is illegal and void as there is violation of principles of impeccable integrity and institutional integrity laid down in the judgments of this Court in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226 and Centre for PIL & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 1.
2. In the writ petition filed by the Centre for Integrity, Governance, and Training in Vigilance Administration and another, a prayer has been made to direct the Union of India and/or its instrumentalities to provide for minimum number of years of knowledge and experience in the field of vigilance for being appointed as CVC or VC. During the pendency of the writ application, with the permission of the court, this Court had permitted respondent No.1 to proceed with the appointment of CVC and VC under section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”) subject to the decision of the petition. The appointments have been made and the challenge is confined to the appointments of CVC and VC.
3. It is urged by the Common Cause Society that Central Vigilance Commission is, in the absence of a Lokpal, India’s top anticorruption body. The Commission is considered the apex integrity and watchdog institution of the country. Apart from overseeing the vigilance administration, it has also the power of superintendence over the CBI in corruption cases and is also the designated agency for protection of the whistleblowers to examine their complaints. It oversees functioning of the Central Government and its instrumentalities.
4. This Court in Vineet Narain (supra) has observed that Central Vigilance Commission shall be given statutory status. The Selection Committee has to select a person of impeccable integrity and the appointment shall be made by the President. Pursuant thereto, Parliament has enacted Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and Selection Committee comprises of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition.
5. In Centre for PIL (supra) this Court had quashed the appointment of the then CVC by declaring decision of Selection Committee to the President for appointment as nonest. It was observed by this Court that the activity of decision making process has to ensure that the powers are exercised for the purpose and in the manner in which the said Act provides otherwise the recommendation has no existence in the eyes of law. This Court directed that the legality of the exercise of selection is subject to judicial review. All civil servants and other persons empaneled shall be outstanding civil servants or persons of impeccable integrity, made on rational criteria reflected by recording vigilance and/or notings akin to reasons. Complete information with material and data whether favourable or adverse has to be forwarded. Nothing material or relevant should be withheld. Contemporaneous service record, even adverse remarks, are specifically to be brought to the notice of Selection Committee. Process of selection by the Committee has to be fair and transparent.
6. It is averred in the petition that the absolute requirement is that Central Vigilance Officer should have unblemished record of service. The appointment of Mr. K.V. Chowdary, respondent No.2 as CVC has been assailed on the basis of facts mentioned in the complaint. Prior to that, he was the Chairperson of CBDT and Advisor to the SIT on black money. Before his appointment, several representations were made to the
