#dnaEdit: Deferring to authority

Having long denied the need to question former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the coal block allocation scam and former finance minister P Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis deal, the CBI has much to answer for why it failed to record the statements of both leaders earlier. A special CBI court hearing the closure report filed by the CBI in the Talabira-II coal block allocation case has directed the agency to record the statements of Singh and then principal secretary TKA Nair. The agency had initially booked industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla and former coal secretary PC Parakh under the Prevention of Corruption Act but did a u-turn later and filed a closure report absolving them of all charges. The CBI’s hesitation to question Singh, despite the former PM’s willingness to be interrogated, is not the only instance of the agency’s deference to influential political figures in the erstwhile government. This December 6, the CBI finally recorded Chidambaram’s statement in the Aircel-Maxis deal. In April 2012, allegations that Chidambaram had inappropriately cleared the Rs3,500 crore Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006 were first aired by Subramanian Swamy and echoed by the BJP in Parliament. 

While those allegations referred to Chidambaram’s son, Karti, benefitting from the deal, the CBI told a special court in September that the Chidambaram-headed Foreign Investment Promotion Board’s clearance was a “mistake” and was under investigation. The agency said the finance minister could approve investment proposals only upto Rs600 crore, above which the Cabinet Committee on External Affairs’ clearance was needed. Despite these allegations being already in the public domain for two years, it is surprising that the CBI’s investigations have picked up speed only after the UPA government demitted office. In the Talabira-II case, the judge noted that though Nair was examined by way of a questionnaire, which is a departure from the normal practice of recording statements as it forecloses any spontaneous follow-up posers, he refused to answer some questions claiming “he was not in a frame of mind of answering further questions”. For ordinary citizens, it is impossible to get away with such evasive responses to the country’s premier investigation agency.

The CBI’s regular case against Parakh left many questions unanswered. Parakh headed the 25th meeting of the Screening Committee, which rejected Hindalco’s demand for coal linkage for its proposed aluminium plant as premature, noting that rival applicants had already set up facilities. Documentary evidence indicates that the allotment of Talabira-II block to a joint-venture including Birla’s Hindalco was pushed by Singh after Birla wrote two letters to him. Parakh’s indignation at Singh not being named as a co-accused in the so-called criminal conspiracy is understandable. Ascertaining Singh’s stand during the CBI’s preliminary enquiry stage could have helped clarify any suspicions of mala fide and, possibly, averted the filing of regular cases against Parakh, and maybe Birla. Even the closure report absolving the duo appears inconclusive without a clean chit, or otherwise, coming from Singh. This hesitation to record statements of senior ministers contrasts with the hasty and casual interpretation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which terms as criminal misconduct, a public servant’s action in obtaining for any person a pecuniary benefit, without any public interest, while booking Parakh. Public servants must not be prosecuted for policy decisions, even bad ones, if they were taken in good faith. But to ascertain this properly, the agency must shed its inhibitions in questioning ruling politicians. Giving statements before the CBI also represent Singh’s and Chidambaram’s opportunity to clear rumours that have refused to go away.