Press Briefing Monday, 8th August 2011

Shri Manish Tewari addressed the media today.

Shri Manish Tewari said Article 149 of the Constitution of India essentially bestows an accounting function on the Comptroller & Auditor General of India. This function is further reiterated and amplified in the CAG Duties, Powers and Condition of Service Act of 1971. It raises a very fundamental question. Does the CAG have the remit to comment on an appointment process as also the policy choices which a Government may or may not make and even when it chooses to comment on the appointment process in the context of the Commonwealth Games it airs. There are three very crucial dates which somehow escaped the CAG’s attention. 11th September 2003 - when the host city contract was approved by the Cabinet; 13th November 2003 – when the host city contract was signed and 1st November 2004 when the IOA General Assembly, which consisted of many eminences of the National Democratic Alliance, decided to elect Shri Kalmadi as the Chairperson of the Organizing Committee. Were these omissions intentional or was it a case of over-sight or whether the CAG chose to overlook these three very important events – two of which took place during NDA time. I think it is a legitimate question to ask since the CAG has suo-moto decided to amplify its remit. Even most surprising is the behavior of the BJP. Having shed blood in Karnataka, they want to draw blood in Delhi. I want to ask the BJP - are CAG reports gospel and, if they are, what is the function of the Public Accounts Committee and if we are going to take CAG reports prima facie at their face value without an examination, then I would like to ask the BJP what does it have to say about the CAG report with regard to the Uttrakhand government having caused a loss of Rs. 44 crores in the organization of the ‘Maha Kumbh’. Let us remember that this is the party which swears by the Hindutava, I would ask the BJP that in Gujarat, the CAG report on ‘Sujlam – Suflam’ the PAC had the occasion to deliberate upon it. Unanimously it arrived at a conclusion that there is a corruption of Rs. 500 crores in the ‘Sujlam-Suflam’ scheme. Since 2007 and it is now 2011, the Gujarat Chief Minister has abused the legislative process and not allowed that report to be tendered. Same is the case with State Electricity Corporation in Gujarat when CAG points to huge unquantifiable losses which the Gujarat Electricity Corporation has suffered as a result of the excesses of the State government and then you have the case in Uttar Pradesh where the CAG report talks of cost over-runs, losses and wasteful expenditure running into Rs. 1,998 crores. So, what I want to ask the BJP and the opposition is, is there going to be one standard insofar as the CAG reports with regard to Congress governments are concerned and a completely different standard where the CAG has held BJP governments as culpable. So I think before we start tilting at windmills, utilize every opportunity for grand-standing, there is a need to reflect within and there cannot be two standards with regard to the institution or the reports of the CAG.

In relation to suo-moto, on a question as to the reaction of the Congress party the case of Shri Ashok Chavan when compared to the above cases, Shri Tewari said as far as the case of Shri Ashok Chavan is concerned, he himself has shown his intentions to resign from his position till the time the case is fully and impartially investigated. Insofar as the reports of CAG are concerned, such reports are investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. Shri Tewari made no bones of the fact when the CAG reports from 1998 to 2009 were discussed in the Joint Parliamentary Committee, it was decided that not only the reports will be scrutinized, the answers tendered by the government will also be scrutinized and also the reasons for not accepting such explanations by the CAG. So, if the reports of the CAG are taken on their face value and taken as final then I think there is no need for them to submit the same to the President of India and also what is the great need for placing the same before the Parliament. In that situation, there will be no appeal etc.

On another question on the Shunglu Committee and CAG report and the related questions thereon, Shri Tewari said insofar as the CAG reports are concerned, I think the appropriate fora to deliberate upon the veracity or otherwise is the Parliament after the Public Accounts Committee has scrutinized it. So, therefore, there is no need to put the cart before the horse. Let us wait for the PAC to scrutinize it, let them come up to their conclusion and the PAC when it comes back to Parliament will be open for threadbare full-fledged discussion.

Insofar as the Shunglu committee report is concerned, I think it is not even jurisprudence but these are the principles of natural justice that if any allegation is made against somebody, he or she has the right to rebut it. So, therefore, if the Delhi government has chosen to rebut some of the findings of the Shunglu committee report, I think, they are well within their rights to do it and the report and the rebuttal are under the examination of the Home Ministry.

To a question over the genuineness of the report when compared to Shri A. Raja’s case Shri Tewari said as the constitutional status of the CAG report is concerned, it has already been explained by me that the report of the CAG will not be treated as final unless it is placed before the Parliament after its scrutiny by the PAC and there is a discussion on the same in the parliament.

On a question as to whether the CAG has filed any FIR with regard to the leakage of their report, Shri Tewari said the CAG has adopted, with all due respects, a very peculiar way of functioning and the same can be summed up in three words – peeps, leaks and squeaks.

On the question of the reaction of the Congress party on the Palmolein case, Shri Tewari said I spoke to the President of Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee and I am informed that the palmolein matter dates back to two decades. There have been a couple of enquiries earlier in which the Chief Minister did not figure. Subsequently, the last Left Democratic Front government reinstituted a fresh enquiry. That enquiry report also does not pass any strictures on the Chief Minister. When the report was presented to the Court today, the Court directed that there needs to be further investigation with regard to a couple of aspects. So, therefore, if there is a court direction for further investigation, so, be it. Investigation does not by any stretch of jurisprudence means indictment much less anything else.

On a further question on 2-G scam in relation to the resignation of Shri A. Raja and does that not tantamount to having double standards by the Congress party, Shri Tewari said there is absolutely no question of having double standard on any issue. However, what needs to be kept in mind is, that every set of facts has to be looked at in the context of its own peculiar circumstances. The CAG report in the case of the Commonwealth Games, as has been explained by the Delhi government and by some of my colleagues, does not even make a whisper of insinuation against the Chief Minister insofar as it pertains to probity. If at all there is an observation with regard to an alleged financial loss which may or may not have been caused, I think that is what the PAC needs to look into. So, therefore, coming to finite conclusions when the process is still evolving, I think possibly is just the wrong way of doing it.

Shri Tewari further said, as stated and has been explained earlier, the PMO has absolutely no role. It had been presented with a fate-accompli by the documents or the contracts which have been signed by the NDA government and certainly I do not think it lies within the remit of CAG to be commenting about either appointment processes or policy choices of the government.

On another question of PMO’s involvement in the light of a communication of December 2004, Shri Tewari also added that the narration is completely erroneous and that is why I chose to point out three very significant dates whereby contractual agreements were entered into by NDA government and how the whole process unfolded. By selectively picking up a particular communication, out of a chain of events and then trying to distort it so that it is handy in pointing fingers at some body, I think, it is wrong way of doing it.

On Bhopal tragedy case in relation to the fact that one of the companies involved are the sponsorers of London Olympics, Shri Tewari said frankly I have not really applied myself to this issue but if at all the families of victims have submitted any representation to the government, I am sure the government would look at it.    
 

(Tom Vadakkan)
Secretary, AICC