Jethmalani's conduct warranted CBI probe: AG

By Harish Khare

NEW DELHI, JULY 30. The unfolding Ram Jethmalani controversy has centred round the relationship between the executive and the judiciary. The Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, has taken extraordinary care to emphasise that he had asked his former Law Minister to go because as Prime Minister he had to ensure a harmonious relationship with the judiciary. But does this elaborate concern for ``harmony'' really absolve Mr. Jethmalani of the allegation of mala fide conduct in the business of the M.S. Shoes?

The Prime Minister never misses an opportunity to contrast his Government's concern for probity in public life with the previous regimes' infirmities; now the same Mr. Vajpayee is trying to give a ``clean chit'' to a former ministerial colleague despite clear and unambiguous advice of his own Attorney-General that Mr. Jethmalani's conduct in the M.S. Shoes affair warranted a CBI probe.

In his opinion dated May 28, the Attorney-General, Mr. Soli Sorabjee, is believed to have concluded that ``further investigation into the conduct of Shri Ram Jethmalani as the then Minister of Urban Development as well as the role of M.S. Shoes in these matters should be entrusted to the CBI''. As and when the two houses of Parliament debate the matter, the Prime Minister would have to convince the Opposition why no CBI inquiry has yet been initiated.

In his obvious eagerness to help out the M.S. Shoes company, Mr. Jethmalani is suspected of even misleading the Cabinet. The Attorney-General is understood to have made this comment: ``Another feature which emerges is that in the draft Cabinet Note prepared by the Minister there are statements which are not to be found on the files and records and which apparently were supplied to him by M.S. Shoes. For example, the draft Cabinet Note stated that M.S. Shoes had contended before the District Court that another contracting party ``because of his influence'' was freely given extensions. There was no such assertion in the plaint filed by M.S. Shoes. The expression ``because of his influence'' was subsequently deleted. The question is how did it come to be added in the first place.``

The legal opinion available to the Prime Minister shows that Mr. Jethmalani made far too many departures from established procedures, and, therefore, Mr. Vajpayee can be said to be extraordinarily indulgent to Mr. Jethmalani when on July 25 he gave a certificate of good conduct to his former Law Minister. It be recalled that the Prime Minister's press adviser, Mr. H. K. Dua, in a statement on July 25, noted that in asking for Mr. Jethmalani's resignation ``no reflection was sought to be cast on his integrity''.

Maybe, the Prime Minister is mindful of Mr. Jethmalani's reputation as a ``loose cannon''. Perhaps the Prime Minister can cite a caveat in favour of Mr. Jethmalani in the Attorney- General's opinion: ``The refusal of the then Urban Development Minister to refer the matter to the Law Ministry or the Finance Ministry or to the Attorney-General cannot by itself warrant any inference of malafides or dishonest motive.

It is possible to attribute that decision to his misunderstanding of the business rules and also to his invincible belief that the Finance Ministry and Law Ministry, including the Law Officers of the Government of India, lack the requisite knowledge of law of which the Minister genuinely regards himself as the sole repository.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : Indian peacekeepers take position along Lebanon
           border
Next     : Militants blow up goods train, snap rail links