Union Minister for Panchayati Raj Kishore Chandra Deo on Tuesday denied having given the former Samajwadi Party general secretary, Amar Singh, a clean chit in his report as head of the parliamentary committee which probed the 2008 cash-for-vote scam, and said the present police investigation was based on his recommendations.
Talking to journalists after assuming charge of the Panchayati Raj Ministry, Mr. Deo said: “Had I given clean chit then why recommend further investigation into the matter? The current investigation would not have happened without my recommendation.”
He said there was no direct or indirect evidence against Mr. Singh in tapes, cross-evidence or transcripts made available to the committee which, for the first time, had included the evidence in its report and made it public.
Reacting to the arrest of Sanjeev Saxena in connection with the case, Mr. Deo said there was no proof before the committee to suggest he was in any way associated with Mr. Singh and, since the panel lacked expertise, it recommended further investigation against him [Mr. Saxena] and two others — S. Kulkarni and Sohail Hindustani.
Asked why he had not summoned Mr. Singh in the light of the allegations made by three BJP MPs then, Mr. Deo stressed that he was not made chairman of the panel to summon anyone. “It had to be based on prima facie evidence and there had to be sufficient proof. The tapes contain neither his [Mr. Singh's] image nor his voice.”
He denied that two members on the panel — Md. Salim and Vijay Malhotra — had dissented with his report. “Their note cast aspersions on my functioning. Actually, there was no dissent on the report.”
Cumbersome process
Mr. Deo also explained the futility of summoning Mr. Singh before the panel outlining the cumbersome process right from petitioning the Lok Sabha Speaker, who in turn would have to seek the permission of the Rajya Sabha Chairman as Mr. Singh was a member of the Upper House.
Also, it would be Mr. Singh's prerogative to appear or not to appear before the panel as the rules did not make the appearance of a member mandatory.
Mr. Deo contended that the present report would not have been possible had he sought to summon Mr. Singh.
Asked whether the government had delayed taking action on his report, Mr. Deo said it would not have had much impact on the life of the 14th Lok Sabha as it soon expired and a new House was formed, but added that he was not aware of the reasons for the delay. “There was a break. It is now going on. Better late then never.”
He denied that the government acted on his report only at the prodding of the Supreme Court.
Asked whether he was happy that action was being taken on the basis of his report, Mr. Deo said: “There is no question of [my] being happy or not being happy. Whatever is happening is with respect to the recommendations made in the report.”
He said he was not monitoring the developments after submitting the report to the then Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, who forwarded it to the Home Ministry for action.
Mr. Deo's other recommendations pertained to changing the rules for summoning members taking into consideration the rules of House of Commons. He said he had also submitted a report that the mastermind of the scam, S. Kulkarni, had committed a breach of privilege by disclosing the proceedings of the committee to the media but had not recommended any action against him.
Similarly, he regarded as contempt of the House the placing of cash on the table of the House. But the House was dissolved soon and only the 14th Lok Sabha could have initiated any punishment.
