'What Has Sonia Done?'

Against the motion for condemnation of the the alleged involvement of some Indianentities and individuals as non-contractual beneficiaries of the United Nations'Oil-for-Food-Programme in Iraq, as reported in the Report of the United Nations'Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee).

Source: Verbatim uncorrected proceedings of the Rajya Sabha

Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, we are discussing a very important subject. Thereis no doubt. Sir, the zeal and the ability with which the two very distinguishedlawyers on both sides have presented their cases shows the importance of what isbeing argued. Both of them somehow are one at least on one issue. They said thatMr. Jethmalani knows some law.

I must only say this for the benefit of the whole House that I am no morepractising criminal law. I have put up a notice board outside my House that youare welcome to see me for anything except on a case civil or criminal. But, Sir,I must say only this that I have today the unpleasant misfortune of disagreeingwith both on a vital issue of law.

But, Sir, let me start with a couple of introductory remarks. They make anacquisition and on this side comes a reply, 'You are no better. You are worse.'I don't subscribe to this line of argument. It is only bad for democracy. If theOpposition is worse than the Ruling Party, it is a sad day for the Indiandemocracy. And, Sir, two wrongs never make a right. I have no doubt thatultimately they paid the price which in a democracy has to be paid for havingdone an extremely wrong thing in the matter of Kelkar. Mr. Kapil was right thatthey did not live up to the standards which are required of a Government and I,who had been their life-long friend, had to part with their company because ofmy consciousness could not, possibly, harmonise with the sad state of affairs.However, Sir, we have to deal with this case on its merits.

The second thing I wish to say is, unfortunately, loyalty to the party andthe immediate benefit to the party make you somewhat impervious to the cause oftruth. And, Sir, there is a tendency to indulge in irresponsible adventurism,hasty and premature conclusions and judgments often based upon no legal evidenceor even any moral evidence. I regret that the same thing had happened, to alarge extent, in this case. Sir, however distinguished my friend, Mr. ArunJaitley, as a lawyer, may be, I don't think it does very great credit to themover of this Resolution. But, I would not call it a waste of time becausematters like this must be debated here. They add to the fund of knowledge of theelector. He has a right to know how his elected representatives are behaving inParliament and elsewhere. And, I think, it adds to his fund of knowledge whichis good for democracy and which is good for our Parliamentary system ofgovernance.

Sir, I am prepared to take the case of Mr. Aurn Jaitley and put it on ahigher footing than Mr. Kapil Sibal. I am not suggesting that Mr. Sibal iswrong. His arguments have to be evaluated by this House. But, let me take itthat what we have been hearing is not merely an opinion of Mr. Volcker or theauthor of that Report. Let us assume that those 1,000-page document now has beenhanded over actually mentioned that two coupons were issued -- one in the nameof the Congress Party and one in the name of Mr. Natwar Singh. Let us assumethat the documents record that these coupons were cashed and a sur-charge waspaid and both, the Saddam Government and the beneficiaries of this contract madea profit out of it. Does even this documentary evidence amount to any kind ofevidence, both in law and in commonsense?

I am surprised that this argument came from Mr. Arun Jaitley, who has beenthe lawyer of Shri L.K. Advani in the Hawala case. What was that case all about?That case was related to the finding of entries in the account books of Jainssaying that some payments have been made to Mr. L.K. Advani. After longarguments by Mr. Aurn Jaitley, the trial court framed charges but the High Courtquashed them on the ground that entries made in the account books of Mr. Jaincannot possibly be treated as evidence against Mr. L.K. Advani.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, I am on a point of order. (Interruptions) There is a legal issue. (Interruptions) Please, please. (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let us hear him also. (Interruptions)

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, Shri Ram Jethamalani said that the court had said that document book was not evidence. That is not correct. What the court had said was, loose sheets were not account books. (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. (Interruptions) There is no point of order. (Interruptions) You proceed, Mr. Jethmalani. (Interruptions)

Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, my friend has not read the judgement. It was alsoheld in the judgement that loose sheets could not constitute a book at all. Butthe Supreme Court had also held that entries in the books of accounts were notlegally admissible evidence. But, that apart, this is law and this istechnicality. What is the common sense behind this law, which we tend to forget?The common sense behind this law is that, ultimately, who the persons are whomake these documents and bring them in existence. They are admittedly theauthors of the crime; they are accomplices in the crime. They are the documentsmade by the accomplices. And, the first criticism that we have learnt in everycourt -- Mr. Jothi can't be ignorant of it -- for two hundred years the courtshave said that you cannot rely upon the evidence of an accomplice for the simplereason that he knows his true accomplice. He has a tendency and has a loyalty tohis accomplice. He must do his best to conceal the identity of that accompliceand substitute somebody else in his place. This is the common sense behind this.

Now, Sir, I want to deal with the facts of this case. Look at it, Sir, thatthe Congress Party and Mr. Natwar Singh decided in that fateful year 2001 thatthey were both going to make some money out of this coupon system. And, havingso decided, do you think, Sir, that the whole Congress Party consists of suchfools that they would say that please issue the coupons in their name, pleasemake the entries in your books of account in their name, and please create thebest documentary evidence against them. Sir, nobody. As a criminal lawyer ofsome experience I tell you that when my clients names appear under thesecircumstances, I start with the assumption that the case against them must befalse.

And, Sir, if Mr. Natwar Singh came and said to the Congress leaders that theywere about to make a huge profit out of that, do you think that the CongressParty would tell him that you have a bigger contract of 54 of five lakh, andthey would have a smaller share of 50,000 dollars. Sir, no fool does it. Thevery fact that it is said that contracts were sought to be created by theconsent of the Congress Party in their name, and they were supposed to share20,000 dollars, whereas that fellow got 5,00,000 thousand dollars. This isaltruism, which does not exist very well. Assume, therefore, that this must betotally false.

Bear in mind that it is not suggested that a single penny had gone into thecoffers of the Congress Party, not a single penny has been earned by anyrecognized representative of the Congress Party. Nothing has gone into theaccount of any party. And, Sir, it is said that Masfield was the person whoultimately cashed the coupons. And, suppose if Masfield has to really plead withthe Iraqis that he is a fit person to whom they must give the coupons, what doyou think he will say? He will say, "I am a person who has some influencein India. I will be able to get those people on your side. I will see to it thatthey support you in the international struggles to which you are a party, wewill protect your rights, and so on and so forth". All that will be done,and the name that would appear, therefore, would be the name of the person whoseinfluence he had tried to use. The fact remains that the allegation is that alarge number of Indians.....

Mr. Kapil Sibal read the statement of the ex-Minister, Naik. What does itshow?  It shows that it was known to the Minister of the NDA Governmentthat a large number of Indian businessmen were making profits out of thesecoupons. And, yet, he did not wink for a minute, he took no action. On thecontrary, he said that it is very likely that he helped them to get business. Ifhe helped them to get business, Sir, knowing the sordid world in which we live,who do you think he must have patronised? He must have patronised those whom heknew; some people belonging to his party, some people belonging to hisconstituency, some people belonging to the RSS. This is how life works. So, Sir,what would he tell them? "Don't put the name of my party or anybodyconnected with me, there is the Congress Party sitting in the Opposition, namethem." (Interruptions)

Sir, there is not one word of evidence. Not one in those voluminous books tosuggest that anybody on behalf of the Congress participated in theseconfabulations. But, Sir, I must say at this stage that if Mr. Arun Jaitley hassome solid evidence that these young people who accompanied the delegation atthat time were involved in confabulations with the Oil Ministry officials inIraq, it is perfectly possible that these young men to be able to curry favour,they used the name, probably, of his own father or they used the name of theCongress Party, but they will not use the name of any other party which wastrying to do business, which was helping them in doing business in Iraq.

Sir, I am convinced on this evidence that it is an overheated imagination toaccuse the Congress Party of being involved in this corruption. Is it or is itnot an overheated act of political malice that you must ask for the resignationof Mrs. Sonia Gandhi? What has she done? Is there a trickle of evidence againstthat poor woman that she should resign from the post which she is holding?

Even against Mr. Natwar Singh it is argued that the Prime Minister didsomething wrong. The Prime Minister has given him a clean chit. Sir, I do notknow whether it is understood what a clean chit means. To ask a Minister to giveup his Department and be a Minister without a portfolio, which means without anywork, it is 90 per cent dirty. Maybe, some man without self-respect may see inthe remaining ten per cent some evidence of cleanliness. But I find that thereis not a clean chit given. It is worse than asking a person to resign fromoffice and get out. It is dependent upon the dignity and the sense ofself-respect of that person to do what he likes. But, Sir, the Prime Ministercannot possibly be accused either way. He has not given a clean chit. If he hadto give a clean chit, he would retain him where he was and, Sir, he has also nottried to hold that on this flimsy evidence the man is guilty.

You cannot visit the father with the sins of his child. Even if Dr. ManmohanSingh came to the conclusion that, perhaps, his son has something to do with hisbusiness, he could not ask the Minister to resign merely on the ground thatthere is some suspicion against the son.

Now, Sir, a couple of differences which I have with my friend Mr. Kapil Sibaland where I agree with my friend Mr. Arun Jaitley. It is true that Saddam wasnot a public servant as defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is truethat all those Iraqi gentlemen who were acting on behalf of the Government ofIraq, and entered into these unholy deals in contravention of the U.N. SecurityCouncil Resolution were public servants under their own law, but they are notpublic servants under our law. Therefore, to that extent, Mr. Kapil Sibal isright. On the other hand, those persons who went and sought business and usedthe name of the Congress were either guilty of cheating under Section 420because they pretended to have an authority or influence which they did nothave, and, therefore, they made a misrepresentation and were guilty of offencesunder Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 8 of the Preventionof Corruption Act. The Prevention of Corruption Act punishes also privatecitizens and not merely all public servants. Therefore, Sir, to some extent, Mr.Arun Jaitley is right.

The offences, if any, are disclosed here, they are offences either under theIndian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act. And, once again, Isay that Mr. Kapil is wrong. You don't file FIRs when you are convinced that anoffence has been committed. Offence has to be inquired into when within themeaning of section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code there is a reasonablesuspicion that an offence has been committed. So, Sir, today, I don't believethat reasonable suspicion exists so far as the Congress Party is concerned. Idon't believe that it exists even against Mr. Natwar Singh, but there is somereasonable suspicion against many Indian citizens who canvass this business,and, probably, misuse the name of the Congress Party. And Sir, there is nodifficulty in registering FIRs against them and having the case investigatedwith proper powers under section 166 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sir, the last point that I wish to make is that the fault of the CongressParty-- in the past which turned me into an enemy of the Congress Party at onetime -- is the lack of transparency. Sir, that you have got thousands ofdocuments, please show them to the public. The people are entitled to know. Whatis the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act? You have given it to the DER, but whatare they going to do with the documents? Why keep them away from the public?This is the highest court of justice. This is the court which inquires into andconducts investigation and inquisitions into the conduct of everybody. Producethose documents.

I have no doubt that the honour of the Congress Party and its dignity will bea thousand per cent enhanced when they show this transparency in their dealingsin the Parliament. Produce those documents. Tell the Leader of the Oppositionthat you come and look at these documents yourself, and let us understand whatyou have to say about it. Take them into confidence, Sir. According to me itwould be a jewel in their crown, and I have no doubt that their reputation shallstand enhanced. Thank you.