Contradicting Law Minister Veerappa Moily, Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas's counsel Wills Mathews said that Thomas has not resigned from his post. "It is incorrect. Thomas has not resigned. We have not even received the copy of the judgment. We have to go through the judgment and study it in depth. After that we will think of the future course of action," Mathews said.
After the Supreme Court verdict, Moily said, "Thomas has resigned...the Supreme Court has also held his appointmentas illegal." To a question on the apex court's rap on the government on Thomas' appointment, Moily said, "We respect the judgement. Other details we won't be able to say because we are yet to go through the judgement."
Mathews said he would go through the judgement and consider "whether to resign or to file a review petition". Speaking to PTI, the counsel claimed Thomas has not yet gone through the judgement and would take a decision onlyafter perusing it. "I just talked to him. He was prepared to resign long back but at that time there was a legal opinion that he should not resign. So he continued," the counsel claimed. Citing
Section 6 of the CVC Act, which deals with the removal of Central Vigilance Commissioner and other commissioners, stipulates that he can "be removed from his office only by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court on a reference made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the CVC is to be removed on such ground." But the Supreme Court in its ruling has said that the order to appoint Thoams did not exist in law to begin with due to illegality in his appointment process.
However, the apex court has given its ruling not on a presidential reference and on two public interest lawsuits questioning the legality of order appointing Thomas as CVC. The clause 2 of section 6 of the CVC Act provides that "the President may suspend from office and, if deemed necessary, prohibit (him) from attending the office during inquiry" by the Supreme Court on the reference by made by him or her. But, in the prersent case, the apex court has quashed the very appointment of the CVC.
