[HumJanenge] Re: THOMAS WAS APPOINTED AS CVC DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF VIGILANCE CASE

Sir,

At the outset let me convey on behalf of our membership that there is
no question of even the need for any apology arising. In fact we are
grateful that you have addressed your mind to this topic and given our
members the benefit of your vast experience and knowledge.

In so far as Mr Vineet Narain's interview is concerned, I recall that
he appeared as a panelist on a debate on Times Now TV, and
categorically stated that (and pointed to) persons like the Bhushans
and Mr Anna Hazare (who were present on the other side of the debate)
had scuttled his Jain Havala expose in the Supreme Court (incl.
against numerous MPs and CJIs) by pleading for a diluted / toothless
CVC. Mr Narain also delivered some points on the practical aspects of
corruption which were at considerable variance with "Team Anna"s.

In the circumstances, Mr Narain also confirmed our view that Team Anna
are convenient proxies for the Congress Party to scuttle / delay any
serious investigations into the scams of the past few years. The
recent decision to take out CBI from RTI Act's scope evidently further
confirms this.

Sarbajit
(Moderator)

On Jun 21, 7:14 pm, Ashok kumar Srivastava <justice...@yahoo.com.sg>
wrote:
> APPOINTMENT OF CVC
> But principle of unanimity may also create problem.
> Therefore the best is that the selection committee should be such that by itself
> it does not give
>
> majority to a section. May see the different statutory provision for formation
> of  selection committe in National Human Rights Commission Act. But every thing
> can not be fool proof. Allegations still are made. Refer to the allegation of
> Vineet Narain in one of the channels on TV regarding the selection of the
> present Chairman Human Rights Commission.
> With apology to all .
> Justice A.K.Srivastava
> Former judge of Delhi High Court
>  
>