Press Briefing Monday, 26th April 2010

Shri Abhishek Singhvi addressed the media today.

Shri Abhishek Singhvi said that we wish to remind you and through you the nation and all parties in Parliament that disruption, obstruction and abrogation of the House for the day is not in anyone’s interest - not in national interest and not in public interest. Everything is open for discussion, debate for airing vigorous strong differences. Consider two examples today - there is the issue raised of telephone tapping, to a lesser extent today there is the issue raised of cricket enquiry. My limited point and the focus of this submission to you is only this. Each of us may have a different opinion on the subject on these two subjects. On the first subject, the Hon’ble Minister made a categorical statement in each House. On the second subject, at one level, it is the subject matter of statutory enquiry by regulatory authorities and in other level it is internal to the BCCI Governing Council and its affairs. In either event, if there is disagreement of views on the merits of the issue, what purpose can be served by disrupting Parliament and that is the moot point I wish to make. It is possible that different Members, different parties may have different views. The Government cannot promise and ensure that what it says will match with those views. The Government can only give a clarification and the Home Minister has given that clarification. Take another example, the JPC - there is a demand, I can understand in a democracy can make a demand, perhaps should make a demand according to their view points but if the Government does not immediately agree to the demand, that cannot be the ground for disruption of the Parliament. That will mean that the person or the party making the demand is exercising a VETO. It is exercising a VETO over the functioning of the Parliament. It is this which we have to think about, to introspect. There is absolutely no purpose served in losing precious days of a relatively short post- recess parliamentary session and every possible difference can and should be addressed in a reasonable discussion but not by losing days after days by this disruption.

Shri Singhvi further added that although this is the final statement put before the Parliament, it is also a final interim statement. The Hon’ble Minister has rightly put up that if credible reliable solid concrete information comes in future, all doors are not closed. So this is not final in that sense. If there is credible information about a violation of the tapping guidelines, rules and regulations, then of course that will be looked into and indeed the guilty will be punished but as we stand today as the Hon’ble Minister spoke there is absolutely nothing and his statement is very clear about this violation.

On a question whether the Prime Minister was aware of the phone tapping, Shri Singhvi said that where is the question of his being aware when the Home Minister has given a categorical statement and the Hon’ble Minister speaks for the Government of India, it is not an individual or not even the Ministry. He is speaking for Government of India that there has been no violation. So there is no question of awareness of a violation.

On the question of External Affairs Minister saying on record that the Government may consider handing over Ajmal Kasab to Pakistan after the trial is over, Shri Singhvi said that the Minister has not given a final opinion. The only thing he has said is that the Government of India has received a request which can be considered. It does not mean that we have agreed to hand over Kasab to Pakistan Government.

On the question of IPL issue, Shri Singhvi said that we are not at all, as a political party, concerned about the decision making process of a private body or a Society or an entity like BCCI or its sub-committee like IPL. As a political party we do not deem it necessary at all to give credence or recognize the functioning internally of such bodies. It is not appropriate to make any preemptive judgment on the outcome of those enquiries because the merits of the allegations will be decided there.


 

Tom Vadakkan
Secretary, AICC