“
the fact of the matter is that information regarding Thomas’ criminal case was successfully screened out by the DOPT from the Committee. Had it not been for the Public Interest Litigations (PIL) filed, these facts would not have surfaced in the public domain. The government persisted in its defence of Thomas in the Supreme Court. It was only after the Supreme Court order of 3 March 2011 that the prime minister publicly confessed in Jammu, ‘There has been an error of judgment in CVC appointment and I take full responsibility.’ This was reiterated on 7 March 2011 in the Lok Sabha, and on 8 March in the Rajya Sabha, with a curious addition: ‘Until I went to the meeting of the Committee, I was not aware there was any such case of Palmolein and that it would involve corruption.’ He added that he became aware of the case only when Sushma Swaraj raised the issue in the meeting. He also informed the House that the notes for such committees are prepared ‘under the guidance of minister of state in charge of the DOPT.’ The honest answer should have been that the note which was prepared by the DOPT did not contain this conclusive information. Minister of State DOPT, Prithviraj Chavan, at a press conference in Pune on 8 March 2011, casually passed on the blame to the Kerala government, saying it was the latter that gave vigilance clearance for Thomas. This was strongly refuted on 9 March 2011 by V.S. Achuthanandan, the Kerala CM who accused Chavan of lying. Copies of official communication sent by Kerala to Delhi regarding Thomas’ corruption were being waved around by TV anchors. Chavan then said he was misquoted. But by whom? His own sound box in the live interview in Pune?
”
”