New Delhi (Agencies): The Supreme Court held its verdict on a Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) petition challenging the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner PJ Thomas.

Thomas’ appointment was challenged on the grounds that he was facing a chargesheet in a palm oil imports case in Kerala and was not an outstanding civil servant of impeccable integrity. 

However, the bench comprising of Chief Justice HS Kapadia, Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar reserved the verdict, it was told that any appointment of the CVC that disregarded the view of the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha would get 'politically coloured'. 

The court was told that the 'negation of the views of the leader of opposition would be the negation of very purpose for which the leader of opposition was included in the selection committee'. 

Appearing for the CPIL, senior counsel Prashant Bhushan told the court that the 'majoritarian' approach would make CVC selection and appointment 'politically partisan'.  

The selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the leader of Opposition.  Bhushan argued in favour of the selection panel taking cognizance of the views expressed by the leader of opposition.   

As Bhushan told the court that the government was determined to appoint Thomas as the CVC even before the meeting of the selection committee, Attorney General G. Vahanvati objected to it saying that this averment had no basis. 

Court told Bhushan that if 'your averment is on fact then come on affidavit'. 

Bhushan suggested guidelines for the selection of the CVC should be prepared by the cabinet secretary, the entire process should be transparent and in public domain, there should be unanimity in the selection panel and empanelled officer should be of impeccable integrity.