The manner in which the Government of India, the political leadership of the UPA and the Left Parties have reacted to the Volcker Committee has caused considerable doubts in the minds of right-thinking people. The Government of India appears to be adopting a course to determine the truth of the allegations made which may lead the inquiry to a dead end. The Bharatiya Janata Party has consistently maintained that a criminal law investigation is the proper and legally correct course to seek international cooperation in crime detection. The crucial issue relates to collection of evidence from various foreign countries in order to determine whether political entities in India received financial benefits as a consequence of their stand on certain diplomatic and political issues. Unless the Government embarks upon the legally correct course and ask the right questions it will never get the right answers. The Bharatiya Janata Party has also scrutinized the Government of India notification empowering the Justice Pathak Inquiry Committee and its terms of reference. The objections of the Party are as under :-
1) The Justice Pathak Inquiry authority is empowered to summon witnesses and collect evidence. It has been conferred powers under the Code of Civil Procedure under section 4 of the Commission of Inquiries Act,1952. It has no power under section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue a letter of request to international agencies/courts through the courts in India to collect evidence, both documentary and oral (by interrogation), outside the territory of India. The Committee would, therefore, in the absence of such a power, never be able to substantiate conclusively on the terms of reference No.3 whether any Indian entity has paid or received money pertaining to the two specified contracts in favour of the Congress Party and Shri Natwar Singh.
2) The Notification, under section 11 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, clothes the Justice Pathak Inquiry Authority with certain powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. What is significant is the power which has not been given to the Inquiring Authority. It has no power under section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Section 8B is a provision which ensures compliance of fair play and natural justice. If the conduct of any person or entity is to be inquired into or the reputation of such person is likely to be prejudicial affected, the Commission is bound to issue notice under section 8B to such person. Such person/entity would be given the details of the charges available against them and given certain rights under section 8C of the Act. These rights include the right to cross-examine and the right to address arguments before the Commission. Even a preliminary look at the Volcker report and what has been appearing in newspapers would establish that ordinarily a notice under section 8B would have to be issued to the Congress Party and to Shri Natwar Singh. The Government, perhaps, feels that this would create embarrassing situation. The provisions of section 8B and section 8C have, therefore, been made inapplicable to the inquiry. The Government and the ruling party have been faulting the Volcker Committee on the ground that it should have issued notice to Shri Natwar Singh and the Congress Party. They have been faulting the Volcker Committee for the alleged non-issuance of notice. In order to avoid political embarrassment, the power to issue a notice to a person whose role is being inquired into, the power to issue a section 8B notice has been denied to the Inquiring Authority. How would the Inquiring Authority function in the absence of such a power ?
3) The terms of reference are certainly not happily worded. The first two terms of reference require the Committee to sit in authority as an appeal authority against the findings of the Volcker Committee. The third term relates to an inquiry into the alleged payments by or to an Indian entity , which in the absence of an adequate power to inquire into the money trail, could be a difficult finding to reach.
1) The Justice Pathak Inquiry authority is empowered to summon witnesses and collect evidence. It has been conferred powers under the Code of Civil Procedure under section 4 of the Commission of Inquiries Act,1952. It has no power under section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue a letter of request to international agencies/courts through the courts in India to collect evidence, both documentary and oral (by interrogation), outside the territory of India. The Committee would, therefore, in the absence of such a power, never be able to substantiate conclusively on the terms of reference No.3 whether any Indian entity has paid or received money pertaining to the two specified contracts in favour of the Congress Party and Shri Natwar Singh.
2) The Notification, under section 11 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, clothes the Justice Pathak Inquiry Authority with certain powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. What is significant is the power which has not been given to the Inquiring Authority. It has no power under section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Section 8B is a provision which ensures compliance of fair play and natural justice. If the conduct of any person or entity is to be inquired into or the reputation of such person is likely to be prejudicial affected, the Commission is bound to issue notice under section 8B to such person. Such person/entity would be given the details of the charges available against them and given certain rights under section 8C of the Act. These rights include the right to cross-examine and the right to address arguments before the Commission. Even a preliminary look at the Volcker report and what has been appearing in newspapers would establish that ordinarily a notice under section 8B would have to be issued to the Congress Party and to Shri Natwar Singh. The Government, perhaps, feels that this would create embarrassing situation. The provisions of section 8B and section 8C have, therefore, been made inapplicable to the inquiry. The Government and the ruling party have been faulting the Volcker Committee on the ground that it should have issued notice to Shri Natwar Singh and the Congress Party. They have been faulting the Volcker Committee for the alleged non-issuance of notice. In order to avoid political embarrassment, the power to issue a notice to a person whose role is being inquired into, the power to issue a section 8B notice has been denied to the Inquiring Authority. How would the Inquiring Authority function in the absence of such a power ?
3) The terms of reference are certainly not happily worded. The first two terms of reference require the Committee to sit in authority as an appeal authority against the findings of the Volcker Committee. The third term relates to an inquiry into the alleged payments by or to an Indian entity , which in the absence of an adequate power to inquire into the money trail, could be a difficult finding to reach.
(Shyam Jaju)
Office Secretary
Office Secretary
To Write Comment Please लॉगिन
.gif)
