New Delhi: For the past few days, the front pages of leading newspapers have dedicated their space to stories on Robert Vadra. Now let us for a moment ignore the previous bit of hit & run journalism done by some of them, conveniently timed during the Haryana elections, which Mr Modi used, only to his detriment, as no less than the ECI rejected the charges of the Model Code of Conduct or any other law being violated by Haryana government in favour of Mr Vadra.
And let us dismantle the "facts" as they appeared in the various papers and channels today. Today's story in a nutshell says:
Allegation 1: Vadra's Company Skylight Hospitality was benefitted...
"In June 2013, the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Haryana wrote to the Director General, Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD) detailing policy "relaxations" given to Vadra's company M/s Skylight Hospitality."
Allegation 1 Rebuttal: Was Skylight the only developer to benefit? No. So that in itself suggests how misleading the title of the story is about Vadra being a "special case"
The story then says further....
Allegation 2:
"The relaxation of conditions in this case had cascading effect as similar relaxations had to be given to other developers in this sector," the PAG stated in its letter dated June 7, 2013.
Allegation 2 rebuttal: First of all, the story or the PAG letter does not state the basis on which it alleges that Skylight was the first beneficiary of any such relaxation. And surely the paper does not believe that merely because Skylight in an entrepreneurial endeavour of someone related to the Congress President (yet a complete outsider to politics) it should not be treated as other developers are being treated vis a vis the state government and local authority policies?
In case, the newspaper has any more queries on a matter that has been resolved no less than three times in various courts including the Supreme Court- as to whether Robert Vadra got special favours due to his links, they could read this piece and satisfy themselves to the contrary.
Column for IBNLive: Time to end 'shoot and scoot game' by so-called crusaders
Allegation 3:
"In the letter, the PAG asked for the official file on the colony licence issued to M/s Skylight Hospitality. But the very same day, a letter arrived from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India which stated "ADAI (NR) has desired that instead of thematic para on 'issue of licences for development of colonies etc after release of land', thematic audit on the following topics may please be taken up for the current audit report: procurement and utilisation of pipes in PHED; and implementation of welfare schemes."
Allegation 4:
"Onkar Nath, who was the PAG when his office sent the letter to the TCPD, said: "Auditors do not write anything unless we have concrete evidence to back each and every word that we write in our comments. But when we wrote that letter, we received instructions from our head office (CAG) to stop the audit. Thus, the audit could never be completed.
"I was transferred from the post of PAG, Haryana last month. Until then, the audit had not been completed. We had to stop it midway. I will not be able to comment why such instructions were issued by the CAG," Onkar Nath said. He is now posted as Director General in the New Delhi office of the CAG.
Allegation 3 & 4 rebuttal: The innuendos and drift of the story can be understood easily. You do not need to be a rocket scientist for understanding what is being implied. But here is what the leading daily did not tell you, quite curiously - Just a few days ago, in September 2014, the Delhi High Court looked at the sum and substance of what constitutes allegations 3 and 4 in a PIL before it and dismissed it. The petition had sought quashing of the June 2013 letter by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Shashi Kant Sharma for allegedly "rolling back the audit and inquiry into the grant of licence to Skylight Hospitality (Pvt) Ltd. that is said to be associated with Vadra." The plea had contended that the inquiry was ordered by Shashi Kant Sharma's predecessor Vinod Rai. After hearing these allegations, that sound no different from the innuendos put out by these leading media organisations today, the Delhi High Court found little merit in the claims of any wrongdoing to sustain a demand for any probe.
Now I am sure that these media organisations are not suggesting that the previous UPA government influenced the CAG, an independent Constitutional body, to obey its diktats, did it? Having been argued before a court and dismissed should be enough reason for a publication to not run with such innuendos. But on a lighter note, if the UPA government could indeed exercise such influence on the CAG, I wonder why they suffered all that grief from the CAG when it came to the CWG, 2G spectrum and coal scam reports! It does not make any sense?
It would have also been fair for them to have quoted out of another verdict- this one by the Allahabad HC in 2013, on a PIL against the so-called "special favours" granted to Mr Vadra's company. The court compliments the UPA government at the centre for co-operating and not stalling or subjugating any attempt to arrive at the truth by saying, "Contrary to the aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner, the Secretary to the Prime Minister, being the sole respondent, has responded quickly (on the basis of service of a copy of Writ Petition in advance)."
Now, to imply, without any basis that the CAG was perhaps goaded to not pursue a baseless, un-authenticated, less than factual letter by one of its many lower level offices would be an absolute hit and run job and I hope at least for the sake of its own credibility, these media "head-hunters" stopped short of doing that.
(Tehseen Poonawalla is a political commentator and a Congress sympathizer. Views expressed here are his personal and not that of CNN-IBN or ibnlive.com. We also welcome counter views)
Comments
0 comment