Sources close to Union law minister H.R. Bharadwaj, the man in the eye of the storm, told Outlook: "The CPS statement is correct— it is not referring to the defreezing of the accounts but the action to freeze the accounts—an action that was initiated by the CBI in 2003." Asked why the CPS should go back in time, these sources said, "The CBI made a commitment to the British authorities that it would provide conclusive evidence to link Quattrocchi's bank accounts in London with Bofors. Three years later, the agency has not been able to provide this evidence. Now, the CPS is just trying to protect itself against any legal action that Quattrocchi may take against it for freezing his accounts without any conclusive proof."
Did the CPS communicate with the CBI on November 16, as claimed by the agency? When queried, Annabelle McMillian, the press officer of the CPS, told Outlook: "We are obliged to ensure that the criteria for restraining (freezing) an individual's assets remain active whilst a restraint order is in place. In line with this obligation, we communicated with Indian officials throughout since this order was made in 2003. The decision for anyone to travel to London is a matter for the Indian authorities and was not the result of a request from the CPS." (SeeHowThe CBI Lost Its Trail )
Whatever the truth, the manner in which the accounts were defrozen arouse suspicion. CBI sources allege that once the Hinduja case was quashed in the Delhi High Court in May 2005, a plan took shape to get Quattrocchi off the hook. This was the reason, they say, why the investigating agency was advised not to appeal against the HC judgement in the Supreme Court by then additional solicitor-general K.P. Pathak in October 2005. He exceeded his brief, they say, by including a breather for Quattrocchi. On page 7 of the 15-page document, he noted: "It appears clear that even the case against Quattrocchi would necessarily fail in view of the reasoning of the high court since there too, there are no authenticated documents." This bolstered Quattrocchi's case when his lawyers approached the CPS.
Shockingly, the one man who should have raised an objection but actually concurred with Pathak was S.K. Sharma, director of prosecution for the CBI. Ideally, Sharma should have prepared a watertight case against Quattrocchi. Instead, while recommending additional solicitor-general B. Datta's name for the trip to London, he also included Pathak's brief as part of the the government of India's efforts to "clarify certain legal issues."
What was the sequence of events that led to the defreezing of Q's accounts? Here's the CBI/law ministry/PMO version:
- Last year, Quattrrocchi's lawyers approached the CPS armed with the Delhi high court's order quashing the case against the Hindujas. Their plea was that their client's case was similar and, therefore, the accounts should be defrozen.
- The CPS wrote to the CBI on November 16, 2005, citing the high court judgement as well as the failure of the Indian government to extradite Quattrocchi from Malaysia. The question: was the criteria for restraining his London accounts still active?
- Instead of pleading for further restraint of the accounts, additional solicitor-general B. Datta was directed to go to London in December 2005. He took with him the legal opinion K.P. Pathak gave in the Hinduja case.
- On the basis of Datta's December 22 meeting with the CPS, the accounts were defrozen.
Of course, Bharadwaj has his enemies in the Congress, who include aspirants for his job or those who say that "the dead wood" should go. They have been saying that Bharadwaj gave Quattrocchi a clean chit without the "permission of the PM or the Congress president" only to "show his loyalty" to the party leadership. Sources in the PMO told Outlook: "The focus now is to ensure that none of this should touch the PM and Sonia Gandhi." The focus is also on the affidavit that the CBI will file on January 23 before the Supreme Court—the court, acting on aPIL, had ordered the re-freezing of the accounts, while seeking an explanation for the suggestion to the British authorities that the account be defrozen.
The entire controversy has sparked off a full-scale war between the law ministry and the CBI. The ministry's line is: The CBI, under the influence of the BJP-led NDA government that was in power at the time, rushed to London in 2003 to get the Quattrocchi accounts frozen without any proof to link the accounts with Bofors. Now the same CBI, ministry sources allege, is trying to defend the position taken at that time through selective leaks to the media. "The CBI can act strangely—remember, it got the case against L.K. Advani in the Babri Masjid case dropped in the Rae Bareli court while the cases continued against Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharati etc. In this case, it just targeted Quattrocchi because he makes for a good political target."
The law ministry also stresses that it is no coincidence that the CBI officer who dealt with the Bofors case during the NDA period and travelled to London in 2003 to get Quattrocchi's accounts frozen was none other than the current CBI director Vijay Shankar. "What else can explain the fact that the CBI took four days to issue the clarification that it did? It just wanted to pass the buck for something it had done," say these sources.
Indeed, it is not merely law ministry sources that are accusing the CBI of playing politics—a member of the Congress's core group told Outlook: "It is quite clear that the CBI has played mischief in this case." The core group which met on January 14 also discussed the story put out by a news channel that Manmohan Singh had sought the resignations of both Bharadwaj and minister of state for personnel Suresh Pachauri—the CBI comes under the latter's ministry. Later, government sources said the story had emanated from overzealous officials keen to protect the image of the PM.
Meanwhile, the Congress is taking some comfort from the fact that the BJP appears to be a divided house on the issue: general secretary Arun Jaitley—who, incidentally, was additional solicitor-general in 1990 in the V.P. Singh government and had travelled to Europe with CBI officials on the case—appears to be fighting a lone battle. No other major BJP leader has spoken out on the subject so far. Indeed, Jaitley had announced that its newly elected president, Rajnath Singh, would initiate a nationwide protest on January 17 at a public rally in Delhi. Rajnath failed to show up and Jaitley, who was scheduled to meet the press, took ill and cancelled his briefing. But, should the issue gain momentum, then the BJP will stand united in raising the pitch in the budget session of Parliament.
