New Delhi, Nov. 22: Oh, Julius! If only you had got married in India. You would never have had to divorce Pompeia and sire that inconvenient proverb “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”.

The scam-a-day opera now unfolding in the country came perilously close to its “emperor-has-no-clothes” moment in the Supreme Court today.

“If impeccable integrity is a criterion, then every judicial appointment will be subjected to scrutiny and every constitutional appointment will come under challenge,” attorney-general G.E. Vahanvati told the court.

Vahanvati, who will also defend the Prime Minister in the court tomorrow, was responding to a series of stinging questions from a bench on the appointment of P.J. Thomas as central vigilance commissioner (CVC), the nation’s probity-in-chief.

Former telecom secretary Thomas, who faces accusations of helping cover up the 2G spectrum controversy, was appointed CVC in September despite being chargesheeted in 2002 in a corruption case in Kerala.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, asked whether the eligibility criteria of having impeccable integrity had been met before Thomas was appointed.

“He (Thomas) is an accused in the palm oil import scam and a chargesheet is pending against him since 2002. Do you think he will be able to function as CVC chief at all?” asked Kapadia. “Under the service rule, a person cannot even be considered for promotions when a chargesheet is pending against him,” he added.

The bench clarified it was not commenting on the merits of the palm oil case but only asking if the full procedure, including the criterion of impeccable integrity, had been followed. “We are not questioning his integrity but only suggesting whether he will be able to function as CVC.”

At one stage, Vahanvati asked: “Should a man be blighted for ever if there is a chargesheet against him?”

In a country where political or bureaucratic vendetta has often been blamed for chargesheets that may or may not pass judicial scrutiny, the attorney-general’s question will find some resonance.

However, against the prevailing backdrop of corruption allegations spreading to every corner — taking in politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and industrialists — perceptions tend to overshadow principles such as presumption of innocence till proven guilty.

The bench observed that since his name was in the chargesheet, it would act against him at every stage. “It will be an embarrassment for him,” the court said.

The apex court was hearing two petitions — one filed by an NGO and the other by former chief election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh — that have challenged Thomas’s appointment citing “conflict of interest”.

The case against Thomas relates to alleged irregularities in palm oil import by the Kerala government in 1992, when the IAS officer was the state’s food secretary. In 2005, the Congress-led state government decided to withdraw the case but the Left government that succeeded it revoked that order.

Vahanvati said: “There was no involvement of Thomas in the palm oil import case and the sanction to prosecute him had not been processed.”

He said Lyngdoh had himself prepared Thomas’s annual confidential report (ACR) at one time, stating that his integrity was beyond doubt. “Please consider all aspects,” Vahanvati pleaded.

But Justice Kapadia said the bench needed to consider “only one aspect” — whether Thomas would be able to function as CVC. The court adjourned hearing for two weeks.

However, sources said the government was exploring the possibility of asking the CVC to step down.

When the government chose Thomas as CVC from a shortlist of three, leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj, who was part of the three-member selection committee along with the Prime Minister and home minister, had recorded her dissent.

The petitioners claimed that according to the rules, the committee should decide by “unanimity or consensus (and not) by majority”.