IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT P ETITION (C IVIL ) N O. .................... O F 2015 PUBLIC I NTEREST L ITIGATION IN THE MATTER OF : 1. COMMON C AUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY ) THROUGH ITS D IRECTOR 5, I NSTITUTIONAL A REA NELSON M ANDELA R OAD VASANT K UNJ , N EW D ELHI -110070 EMAIL : COMMONCAUSEINDIA @GMAIL .COM PH: 9818399055 …P ETITIONER N O. 1 2. A DMIRAL L R AMDAS (F ORMER C HIEF OF N AVAL S TAFF ) BHAIMALA V ILLAGE , P.O. K AMARLE ALIBAG -402201 (M AHARASHTRA ) EMAIL : LRAMDAS @GMAIL .COM …P ETITIONER N O. 2 3. D R. E A S S ARMA (F ORMER S ECRETARY , G OVT OF I NDIA ) R/ O 14-40-4/1, G OKHALE R OAD MAHARANIPETA VISHAKHAPATNAM -530002 EMAIL : EASSARMA @GMAIL .COM PH: 09866021646 …P ETITIONER N O. 3 4. M R. R AMASWAMY R I YER (F ORMER S ECRETARY , G OVT OF I NDIA ) R/ O A-10, S ARITA V IHAR NEW D ELHI -110076 EMAIL : R AMASWAMY .IYER @GMAIL .COM PH: 9871075038 … P ETITIONER N O. 4 5. DR. B P M ATHUR (F ORMER D EPUTY CAG) 1621, B HRAMAPUTRA A PARTMENTS SECTOR -29, N OIDA -201303 EMAIL : DRBPMATHUR @GMAIL .COM PH: 9810271222 …P ETITIONER N O. 5 6. S HRI S K RISHNAN (F ORMER M EMBER , D EPT OF P OSTS ) R/ O E-212, A NANDLOK CGHS MAYUR V IHAR P HASE -I NEW D ELHI -110091 EMAIL : VASUN _KRISH @HOTMAIL .COM PH: 09811334738 …P ETITIONER N O. 6 VERSUS 1. U NION OF I NDIA THROUGH ITS C ABINET S ECRETARY CABINET S ECRETARIAT NEW D ELHI -110001 … R ESPONDENT N O. 1 2. M R. K V C HAUDHARY CENTRAL V IGILANCE C OMMISSIONER CENTRAL V IGILANCE C OMMISSION SATARKATA B HAVAN , GPO C OMPLEX INA , N EW D ELHI …R ESPONDENT N O. 2 3. M R. T M B HASIN VIGILANCE C OMMISSIONER CENTRAL V IGILANCE C OMMISSION SATARKATA B HAVAN , GPO C OMPLEX INA , N EW D ELHI …R ESPONDENT N O. 3 A W RIT P ETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER A RTICLE 32 OF THE C ONSTITUTION OF I NDIA SEEKING AN APPROPRIATE WRIT AGAINST THE ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY APPOINTMENT OF THE C ENTRAL V IGILANCE COMMISSIONER AND THE V IGILANCE C OMMISSIONER , WHICH VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE C ONSTITUTION OF I NDIA To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The Humble Petition of the Petitioners above-named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: - 1) That the petitioners are filing the instant writ petition in public interest seeking an appropriate writ against the arbitrary appointment of the India’s new Central Vigilance Commissioner (hereinafter ‘the CVC ’) and the Vigilance Commissioner (hereinafter ‘ the VC ’) as illegal and void. Respondent No. 1 has appointed Respondent No. 2 as India’s new CVC on 06.06.2015 and Respondent No. 3 as the VC on 11.06.2015 for a period of 4 years. Respondent No. 2 and 3’s appointments are illegal and liable to be declared void as they violate the principles of ‘impeccable integrity’ and ‘institutional integrity’ laid down in the landmark judgments of this Hon’ble Court in Vineet Narain case (1998) 1 SCC 226 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) case (2011) 4 SCC 1. THE P ETITIONERS a) Petitioner No. 1, Common Cause, is a registered society (No. S/11017) that was founded in 1980 by late Shri H. D. Shourie for the express purpose of ventilating the common problems of the people and securing their resolution. It has brought before this Hon’ble Court various Constitutional and other important issues and has established its reputation as a bona fide public interest organization fighting for an accountable, transparent and corruption-free system. Mr. Vipul Mudgal, Director of Common Cause is authorized to file this PIL. The requisite Certificate & Authority Letter are filed along with the vakalatnama. His annual income is Rs 14.5 lakh (approx.) (PAN number: AAXPM0305P). Society does not have a UID number. b) Petitioner No. 2 is Admiral (Retd.) L Ramdas. He is the former Chief of Naval Staff and a recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay award for his social work. His annual income is Rs 16 lakhs (approx.) (PAN number: ABXPL7264K). He does not have a UID number. c) Petitioner No. 3 is Dr. E A S Sarma. He is a former Power Secretary to the Government of India, former Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, and former Principal Advisor (Energy) to the Planning Commission. He studied at Harvard University and holds a Doctoral degree from Indian Institute of Technology (Delhi). His annual income is Rs 11 lakhs (approx.) (PAN number: AABPE1384L). His UID number is 853422610935. d) Petitioner No. 4 is Mr. Ramaswamy R Iyer. He is a distinguished former Secretary to the Government of India. A recipient of Padma Shri, Mr. Iyer is a honorary professor at Centre for Policy Research. His annual income is Rs 18 lakhs (PAN number: AAAP12364K). His UID number is 549572190826. e) Petitioner No. 5 is Dr. B P Mathur. He is a former Deputy Comptroller & Auditor General of India. He is also former Director of National Institute of Financial Management. His annual income is Rs 11 lakhs (approx.) (PAN number: AAIPM3386P). His UID number is 280334940140. f) Petitioner No. 6 is Mr. S Krishnan is a retired officer of Indian Audit & Account Service. He is formerly Member (Finance), Department of Posts, and Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Finance. His annual income is Rs 12 lakhs (PAN number: AAKPK3106B). His UID number is 840408776178. THE R ESPONDENTS Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through its Cabinet Secretary. Respondent No. 2 is Mr. K V Chaudhary who has been appointed as the CVC by the Union of India. Respondent No. 3 is Mr. T M Bhasin who has been appointed as the VC by the Union of India. The petitioners have not made any representations to the authorities regarding the matter in issue since several eminent persons have already written to the authorities regarding the issue, and despite that the impugned appointments were made and not reviewed. The petitioners have no personal interest, or any private or oblique motive in filing the instant petition. There is no civil, criminal, revenue or any litigation involving the petitioners, which has or could have a legal nexus with the issues involved in this PIL. THE C ASE IN B RIEF 2) Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter ‘ the Commission ’) is, in the absence of a Lokpal, India’s top anti-corruption body. The Commission is considered the apex integrity and watchdog institution of the country. Apart from overseeing the vigilance administration, it has also been tasked with superintendence over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in corruption cases and is also the designated agency for protection of the whistleblowers & examination of their complaints. It acts as a watchdog over the Central Government and its instrumentalities. BACKGROUND 3) This Hon’ble Court in the landmark judgment in Vineet Narain case had directed the following: “The Central Vigilance Commission shall be given statutory status. Selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by a Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from a panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity to be furnished by the Cabinet Secretary. The appointment shall be made by the President on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee. This shall be done immediately.” (emphasis supplied). 4) Pursuant to the said judgment of this Hon’ble Court, the Parliament had passed the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter ‘ the 2003 Act ’) giving statutory status to the Commission. It had incorporated the order of this Hon’ble Court that the Selection of the CVC be made by a Committee of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Leader of Opposition. Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act reads as: 4. (1) The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal: Provided that every appointment under this sub-section shall be made after obtaining the recommendation of a Committee consisting of— (a) the Prime Minister — Chairperson; (b) the Minister of Home Affairs — Member; (c) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People —Member. 5) In the CPIL case (supra), this Hon’ble Court declared the recommendation of the selection committee to the President for appointment of the then CVC as non est in law. This was so held since this Hon’ble Court found that the appointment would dilute the integrity of the statutory institution of the Central Vigilance Commission. This Court held that the test is whether the individual would be able to perform his duties. The petitioners submit that the ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable in the present case. This Hon’ble Court in its detailed judgment held: “If a duty is cast under the proviso to Section 4(1) on the HPC to recommend to the President the name of the selected candidate, the integrity of that decision making process is got to ensure that the powers are exercised for the purposes and in the manner envisaged by the said Act, otherwise such recommendation will have no existence in the eye of law. The HPC must also take into consideration the question of institutional competency into account.