The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) had not advised central vigilance commissioner (CVC) P J Thomas to step down from his post, the Rajya Sabha was informed today.

This was stated by the government in a written reply which came on a day when the Supreme Court quashed the appointment of Thomas, who is facing a corruption case in Kerala, as the CVC.

In the reply to a question whether the PMO had advised Thomas to resign from his post, Minister of State for Personnel V Narayanasamy said, "No."

The question was put up by Shree Gopal Vyas (BJP). He had also sought to know if the PMO had asked the CVC to resign, whether it was turned down and if the government found itself helpless in taking any decision on this matter.

He also wanted to know the details thereof to which Narayanasamy said, "(They) do not arise."

Related story

SC ruling in CVC case: Moily dismisses opposition criticism

Dismissing as "baseless" opposition criticism that the verdict in the CVC case was slap on its face, the government today said the order was not a reflection on the selection committee headed by the prime minister and attributed it to the "failure" of the system.

"This is a failure of a system in the government and we need to address that and move forward...It certainly is not a reflection on the collegium (the three-member committee which selected P J Thomas as CVC) or the Prime Minister," Law Minister M Veerappa Moily told PTI here.

Observing that the government is bound by the judgement of the Supreme Court, Moily said it was a judicial review of an executive order and dubbed as "baseless" suggestions that it was 'slap on the face of the government'.

He said executive orders are challenged before the apex court on many occasions and the government takes corrective measures based on these rulings.

"It is a guidance for the future...The government will work on the new process for future appointments. But, at the same time, we have to remember that certain procedures are well laid out," he said, suggesting that the collegium's decision was based on the vigilance clearance given to Thomas by the previous CVC.

"We had to trust the earlier CVC (who gave Thomas vigilance clearance)...the previous NDA Prime Minister has not looked into the notings...somwhere we believed in the system.

That system has failed," he said.

He said the court took note of the fact that the vigilance clearance was obtained when he was appointed as Chief Secretary of Kerala. "The same vigilance report was produced before the committee," he said.

 "On this basis, the appointed was made. There is absolutely no reflection on the Prime Minister or the committee. All they have said is what ought to have been done, what should have been done...that is what the court has said."

The law minister said under the CVC Act of 2003, there were certain criteria and the judgement has "expanded the scope of that and given certain parameters...It has not gone beyond that."

He also pointed that there is also a mention in the judgement that there is no need for the committee to be unanimous in taking the decision. He was referring to the dissent note of leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj during the meeting in which Thomas was selected as the CVC. The other member of the committee was Home Minister P Chidambaram.

Moily, however, refused to comment on 'behind the scene' efforts made by the government to persuade Thomas to step down after the court started hearing the case challenging his appointment.

Reacting to the court ruling, BJP President Nitin Gadkari had said it was a "slap" on the government's face.