Did the principal secretary to the prime minister authorise the
controversial meeting a joint secretary at the PMO had at the CBI
headquarters to discuss the coal scam report, asks T V R Shenoy.
'The heart of the report was changed on the suggestion of government
officials,' the Supreme Court observed on May 8, 2013, referring to
the CBI report on the Coal Allotment Scam.
Three questions arise.
Who was the surgeon? In which hospital was the heart transplanted? And
when was the operation carried out?
Conventional wisdom points a finger at then law minister Ashwani
Kumar. But reading the nine-page affidavit filed by CBI Director
Ranjit Sinha on May 6 and the observations of the apex court raises
intriguing questions.
On March 6 Ashwani Kumar met the CBI director, the attorney general,
then additional solicitor general Harin P Raval, and two joint
secretaries. These last two have been identified as Shatrughna Singh
(from the Prime Minister's Office) and A K Bhalla (from the coal
ministry).
The first question was about the identity of the surgeon. The CBI
director's affidavit offers four possibilites.
First, the 'heart transplant' was carried out by Ashwani Kumar.
Second, the surgery was performed by a law officer, either then
additional solicitor general Harin Raval or Attorney General G E
Vahanvati.
Third, the changes were carried out by the CBI at its own initiative.
Fourth, do not forget that PE 2 (Preliminary Enquiry 2), which the
Supreme Court described as 'the heart of the status report', was also
shown to Shatrughna Singh and A K Bhalla.
The classic trilogy of criminal investigations runs 'means, motive,
and opportunity'. Any of the four parties mentioned above possessed
both the means and the opportunity. I shall not speculate today as to
the motive.
Page Three of Ranjit Sinha's nine-page affidavit says, 'Accordingly
draft reports were taken to the office of the Hon'ble Minister for Law
& Justice. A copy of the draft report pertaining to PE 219 2012 E 0002
(allocations made during 2006 to 2009), herein referred to as PE 2,
was perused by him and he also made certain changes in the same...'
This seems clear enough, does it not? Ashwani Kumar changed the heart.
But there is more.
The CBI director's affidavit says there were three meetings between
the CBI officers and others on that eventful sixth of March.
That afternoon O P Galhotra, joint director of the CBI, and Ravikant,
deputy inspector general, met the attorney general at his residence.
The CBI director's affidavit clarifies, 'I was not present at the said
meeting,' where the attorney general 'suggested certain minor changes
in the Status Report of PE 2.'
Interestingly, he also says that Vahanvati 'neither asked for nor was
given a copy of the final Status Reports.'
Why did the CBI director specify that Vahanvati was not given a copy
of the report?
Is this an implied suggestion that someone else was given a copy?
We now come to the third meeting. 'Later in the evening the same day,
a meeting was held with Shri Shatrughna Singh, Joint Secretary in PMO,
and Shri A K Bhalla, Joint Secretary in Ministry of Coal, in the
chamber of Shri O P Galhotra, Joint Director CBI at the request of
Shri Shatrughna Singh.'
The affidavit continues, 'Both these officials went through the draft
Status Reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4. Next day, on 7th March,
2013, they suggested amendments in a paragraph (later numbered as
1.21) of PE 2 and a paragraph (later numbered as 2.8 of PE 4).'
Page Eight of the affidavit carries this significant line: 'From
Paragraph 1.21 of PE 2, the tentative finding about non-existence of a
system regarding allocation of specific weightage/points was deleted
at the instance of the officials of PMO and Ministry of Coal.'
What is the importance of this sentence?
The heart of the Coal Allotment Scam is that allocations were made
arbitrarily. It is this conclusion -- about 'the non-existence of a
system' -- that the two joint secretaries asked the CBI to delete.
Ashwani Kumar and Vahanvati grabbed the headlines. But the Supreme
Court latched on to the true curiosities, the presence of the two
joint secretaries and to the fact that they suggested changes the next
day.
Their Lordships observed, 'On March sixth two Joint Secretaries visit
the CBI office and they are shown the draft Status Report. They go
back, and come back on March seventh and suggest changes. Mr
Parasaran, this is something very serious.'
Mohan Parasaran, the solicitor general, second in the hierarchy of law
officers, was appearing thanks to the squabbles between Attorney
General Vahanvati and former additional solicitor general Harin Raval.
To drive home the point their Lordships demanded, 'What business did
these two officers have to come to the CBI? As if the CBI welcomes
everyone!'
It is an excellent question. The Government of India [ Images ]
operates under certain rules. One regulation is that an officer in one
department cannot meet an officer in another wing at whim. It has to
be authorised by a minister, such as V Narayanasamy, the minister of
state in the PMO, or by a secretary, such as Pulok Chatterji,
principal secretary to the prime minister.
Did Pulok Chatterji authorise Shatrughna Singh's participation in the
many conferences of March 6, 2013? Particularly, the meeting made at
his joint secretary's own request, with O P Galhotra, at the CBI
headquarters?
If these were unapproved, did Pulok Chatterji demand an explanation
from Shatrughna Singh? Or Union Coal Secretary S K Srivastava from A K
Bhalla?
Remember that the CBI director's affidavit says Vahanvati was not
given a copy of the Status Report and that the two joint secretaries,
who had seen the draft on the evening of March sixth, came back the
next day with a request for specific change.
This raises two possibilites. First, the two joint secretaries enjoy
photographic memories.
Second, at least one of them took a copy of the report out of the CBI
headquarters that evening, studied it overnight, and came back with
suggested changes the next morning.
If a copy was taken out, did Shatrughna Singh or A K Bhalla show the
CBI report to anyone else, in the PMO, in the coal ministry, or
anywhere else?
Consider again the implications of what the Supreme Court observed:
'They go back, and come back on March seventh and suggest changes. Mr
Parasaran, this is something very serious.'
Shatrughna Singh, according to my sources, is a truthful man. What
will he say if the Supreme Court tells him to file an affidavit
explaining his actions?
Congressmen offer several explanations to justify the CBI meeting the
law minister and the law officers. There is no excuse at all for
Shatrughna Sinha and A K Bhalla talking to CBI officers.
Let me sum the facts.
First, the Coal Allotment Scam took place at a time when Dr Manmohan
Singh [ Images ] was also the coal minister.
Second, joint secretaries from the PMO and the coal ministry met CBI
officers investigating the scandal. To which the Supreme Court asked,
'How could the report be perused by someone whose action was under the
scanner?'
Third, Shatrughna Singh, A K Bhalla, or both 'suggested' that the CBI
delete the line about the 'non-existence of a system', which goes to
the heart of the Coalgate Scandal.
Fourth, Pulok Chatterji, Shatrughna Singh's boss, has not demanded an
explanation of what he did, which suggests that he acted under orders.
I leave with you a question and a quotation.
The question is: Shall the buck stop at Pulok Chatterji's desk?
The quotation is from the Watergate scandal: 'The cover-up was worse
than the crime.'
rediff
No comments:
Post a Comment