More than Sushma Swaraj, it is the government which is tying itself in knots as the war of words over central vigilance commission PJ Thomas heats up between her and home minister P Chidambaram. A day after she said the home minister had said at the selection panel meeting that Thomas had been “acquitted”, Chidambaram hit out at her.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Chidambaram took exceptions to Swaraj’s comment and charged her of making “thoughtless allegations”.

His statement read :” I take exception to the statement by Ms. Sushma Swaraj, Hon’ble Leader of the Opposition, that I had “misled the Selection Committee” and told the Committee that Shri Thomas had been “acquitted”. Actually, Ms. Swaraj is tying herself in knots by making thoughtless allegations.

“Firstly, if no sanction for prosecution had been granted since 1999 against Shri P.J. Thomas (as admitted by her) how could the case have proceeded to trial or ended in an acquittal of Shri Thomas? Secondly, if the Supreme Court had stayed the trial of the case (as admitted by her), is it not self-evident that the case was pending and nobody could have been either acquitted or convicted?

“I reiterate that the Committee was aware of the palmolein case; that no sanction for prosecution of Shri Thomas had been granted since 1999; that the case was pending in the Trial Court; that the Supreme Court had stayed the trial of the case; and that the then CVC had granted vigilance clearance in respect of Shri Thomas.

“I issue this rejoinder, once again, most reluctantly. I would request the Hon’ble Leader of the Opposition to respect the rule of sub judice and allow the Supreme Court to decide the case.”

But by this statement Chidambaram did two things he didn’t realize. One, he supported Swaraj’s contention that the government was aware of the pending criminal case against Thomas but ignored it. Second, Chidambaram contradicted government’s affidavit before the supreme court which said the selection panel was “not aware” of the pending charge sheet.

Attorney-general GE Vahanvati’s affidavit said: "It was not before the committee. The material pertaining to the sanction for prosecution under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not before the committee."