NEW DELHI: Pradeep Kumar, the outgoing defence secretary and the next Chief Vigilance Commissioner, says corruption remains a very major challenge and would have to be dealt at all levels.
Kumar will be sworn in as the CVC on Thursday, almost four months after PJ Thomas's appointment was quashed by the Supreme Court because of a pending chargesheet against him. The President will administer the oath of office to the 62-year-old IAS officer at Rashtrapati Bhavan at 11 am, officials said.
“Corruption is a very major challenge,” Kumar said on Wednesday, discussing the challenges of heading the country's anti-corruption watchdog at a time when a spirited debate over several scandals and the efficacies of the present anti-corruption mechanisms has gripped the nation.
Kumar, a Haryana cadre IAS officer who was set to complete his mandated two-year term as defence secretary on July 31, was unanimously chosen as the next CVC by a panel comprising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, home minister P Chidambaram and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj. He will have a tenure of little over three years.
Meanwhile, PJ Thomas on Wednesday moved the Delhi High Court demanding a stay on the appointment of Kumar. Through his writ petition, Thomas sought a direction to the President not to issue the warrant of appointment to Kumar since she was yet to decide on Thomas's represe
ntation to her against the judgment of the apex court.
Government sources said that Rashtrapati Bhavan had referred Thomas's petition within days to the Department of Personnel and Training for appropriate action.
In his representation to the President on March 16, Thomas had requested her to refer the decision of the apex court to a constitution bench, arguing the SC bench had no jurisdiction to cancel his appointment as only a five-judge bench could have adjudicated the case. The President cancelled Thomas's appointment as CVC on March 15, 11 days after the apex court order.
“The warrant of appointment of Thomas was cancelled only on the basis of the said judgment. When the legality and the validity of the judgment itself is disputed, it is our humble view that only after reaching conclusion on the legality and validity of the judgment, the respondent (President) should go ahead with the appointment of new CVC,” the petition argued, urging the HC to intervene.
The petition cites Article 145 (3) of the Constitution, saying issues connected with the interpretation of the Constitution have to be decided by a minimum five-judge bench and therefore assails the SC three-judge bench verdict.
The SC had quashed the appointment of Thomas as CVC as a chargesheet was pending against him in the palmolein corruption case in Kerala. Thomas was appointed as CVC in September 2010.
Did Shivraj Patil ask Dikshit to delay Afzal Guru’s hanging?
New Delhi, June 6 (IANS) Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit Sunday stopped short of denying that former home minister Shivraj Patil had asked her government to delay a decision on parliament attack convict Afzal Guru’s hanging.
‘May be what you are thinking is true,’ Dikshit told a news channel when asked if Patil had asked her to keep the matter pending even if the home ministry sends frequent reminders.
Asked if there was any political pressure on the issue, the chief minister again refused a direct reply and said: ‘Political pressure was there and wasn’t there. I cannot say anything more on this.’
Dikshit was replying to questions on a show on Aaj Tak channel.
The city government was sitting over Guru’s file for almost four years and had got 16 reminders from the home ministry on the issue. It replied to the latest reminder in May, saying the matter was under ‘active consideration’.
The Delhi government while sending its comment on Guru’s death sentence May 19 had supported the hanging, but expressed apprehension that law and order could be ‘disturbed’ in the wake of his execution.
Delhi Lieutenant Governor Tejendra Khanna Friday forwarded the parliament attack convict’s mercy petition file to the home ministry.
Khanna, to whom the file was rushed May 19 by the chief minister’s office, sent it to the ministry after ‘carefully studying’ it and giving his ‘personal comments’, a source in the Raj Bhavan told IANS.
The source said that the Supreme Court judgment, confirming Guru’s conviction and death sentence for masterminding the terror attack on parliament Dec 13, 2001 has not been opposed in the file sent to the home ministry.
Guru, a resident of Sopore town in the Kashmir Valley, was found guilty of plotting the attack and was sentenced to death by a trial court in December 2002. The Delhi High Court confirmed the death penalty in October 2003.
The Supreme Court also upheld the capital punishment given to him for his role in the attack. Guru’s wife Tabassum filed a mercy petition before the president after the apex court’s verdict.
As per the laid down procedure, the president sought the home ministry’s views on the mercy petition in 2005.
The procedure on mercy petition also requires the home ministry to seek comments of the state government in whose jurisdiction the crime, for which the death penalty is awarded to the convict, has been committed.