Press Briefing Tuesday, 30th August 2011

Shri Abhishek Singhvi addressed the media today.


Shri Abhishek Singhvi said the BJP is unfortunately up to its antiques again and those antiques only display the BJP’s hypocrisy, duplicity and irresponsibility. The BJP knows that several days of Parliamentary time was consumed on the important Lokpal issue both inside and outside the Parliament. The BJP knows that several legislative measures of urgency are pending - to take just those two examples from Rajya Sabha today – The Commercial Division in the High Court and the Educational Tribunals Bill. Knowing all this, they deliberately chose to disrupt the Parliament. This is condemnable. This is completely wrong. It is unsupportable. It is not at all in letter or spirit remotely within parliamentary norms and parliamentary etiquettes. Now it is more interesting that Mr. Modi in Gujarat is trying to avoid the appointment of Lokayukta. That is the reason why they disrupted the Parliament today. Note, it is worse, he is trying to get the appointee of his choice but that is not the issue – assuming that Mr. Modi is right and assuming Hon’ble Governor is wrong, assuming vice-a-versa - that is not the point. The point is that the Gujarat government has gone to court and in court they have taken the risk of testing the correctness of their stand. While the court is considering whether their stand is right or the Hon’ble Governor’s stand is right, on what reasons they disrupt the Parliament. Apart from the fact that this is not a state matter which you cannot really take it up in the Parliament. Suddenly out of the blue, you have already gone to the court, you have already taken your recourse and you suddenly go and disrupt the Parliament. This is hypocrisy, this is duplicity and this is irresponsibility.

Shri Singhvi further said now let me talk on both ways since the BJP disrupted the Parliament today. This is for you to judge. There is no Lokayukta in Gujarat from somewhere around 2003. The Gujarat Act says that the Lokayukta shall be appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Chief Justice and the leader of the opposition. The Act has no role for the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers from 1986. It is specifically the Governor’s discretion. There is a clause providing a manner of appointment even when the State assembly is dissolved. The Act says there might be no official leader of opposition, so it provides for that eventuality also. That makes it clear that the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister have no role because there is no Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers when the assembly is dissolved. From 1986-87 till 2003 for 15-17 years, the Gujarat government has always been appointing on the basis of one or two names alone given by the Chief Justice and the government playing no role. In 2010, the Gujarat Chief Justice suggested the name of one Justice Dave. Nothing was done for months together because it has to be processed through the government and ultimately Justice Dave said I am not interested. In 2011 the current Chief Justice recommended in a detailed letter Justice R.A. Mehta’s name writing that he has checked up he is a very well known social worker. The Chief Minister replied that No, please suggest some other name other than Justice Mehta. The Chief Justice replies back to the Chief Minister that on your letter I have again checked, Justice Mehta is a man of integrity, repute, dignity, honour and is a well known social worker and will be most suitable in my opinion. The Chief Justice sends a copy of this letter to the Governor. Chief Minister does nothing. Now the Governor writes to the Chief Minister that we have been appointing Lokayukta on the recommendation of the Chief Justice in consultation with the leader of the opposition. There is no response and no action from the Chief Minister. So ultimately acting on the recommendation of Chief Justice, Governor appoints Justice Mehta. This is the practice in Gujarat since 1986-87 and after Governor appoints Justice Mehta, the Gujarat government goes to the court. They seek a stay from the court and they do not get any stay. The court asks them as a preliminary question, you cannot make Governor a party. The matter is pending. These are the merits. Is it not utterly hypocritical talking of a Lokpal in Delhi and obstructing and thwarting a Lokayukta even after one year of letter writing by no less than the Chief Justice and the Governor and is it not utterly hypocrisy to further divert the attention to obstruct the Parliament today out of the blue. This is the true face of the BJP which is always creating hulla, noise, trying to confuse the country on facts and trying to practice utter hypocrisy and we condemn and deprecate it more than the law, more than the courts, more than Parliament, they stand utterly convicted in the bar of public opinion.

On the question whether the centre is favouring the appointment of Lokayukta in Gujarat, Shri Singhvi said there is no question of favouring. We have the wisdom of parliament; we have the impending wisdom which has still to come of the Standing Committee. Where is the question of us favouring and not favouring from a state which is a role model for obstructing the operationalization of Lokayukta. Shri Singhvi further said this is nothing but a over clever method to mislead the world. There are powers which the Governor exercises in his or her discretion. The Governor does not act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Let the BJP answer on the appointment of Justice as the Lokayukta of Gujarat and why do they give lectures from Delhi?

On the question of reaction of the Congress party on the Tamil Nadu passing a resolution in the Assembly regarding reconsidering the mercy petitions of the assassins of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Shri Singhvi said there are resolutions of the Tamil Nadu Assembly but followed by a court order. The court order which says that we shall consider on judicial review the validity of the mercy petition decision by the Hon’ble President and obviously till such time as the validity of that decision is under consideration, there is a stay. This is entirely a constitutional procedure followed by legal procedure involving also administrative procedures. There is nothing at all which a political party like the Congress party has to say on such issues for the simple reason we will abide by the official result of the High Court.
 

(Tom Vadakkan)
Secretary, AICC