Amba Charan Vashishth
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) seems to be making much ado about nothing.
Initially, there was a great hype on Mr Kejriwal’s Janata Darbar programme. It was made to look as if something unique, unheard of in the history of Democracy in India had been achieved. As if it was a wonder of wonders that Kejriwal was going to usher in.
In Himachal Pradesh, when Mr Shanta Kumar became Chief Minister in 1977 for the first time, he started morning meeting general public on working days. Successive Chief Ministers have continued with this practice, meeting the last person in waiting.
India’s first President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, during his second term had started a weekly Janata Darbar in Rashtrapati Bhawan itself.
But Kejriwal’s first Janta Darbar collapsed in a fiasco. He left in a huff failing to manage the large crowd that had thronged to wait upon him. Now he has dispensed it altogether saying he will develop an e-system of redressal of grievances.
At the time of taking oath as Chief Minister, Kejriwal promised that a special phone number shall be notified to the people where they can register their complaints of corruption and given chance to video and audio-graph the person demanding bribe to catch him up red-handed. He did notify a number. Response to this telephone number was tremendous, in thousands, but not many complaints were found worth pursuing and punishing the accused.
In two weeks the ‘great’ achievement of Kejriwal is suspension and cases against 2 petty police constables. This gives the impression as if corruption at higher echelons of administration, of which he spoke of from housetops during his days of struggle, has evaporated with his taking over of office.
He seems to have forgotten his concrete allegations of corruption and wrongdoing against his predecessor Mrs Sheila Dikshit and Commonwealth Games scam. He seems to be so overwhelmed with the affairs and problems of the State that rampant corruption and the vow to fight it at every level and at every cost has gone out of his mind.
In the second week of January 2014 the Supreme Court held singling out of a French firm JC Decaux by the former Delhi Chief Minister Mrs Sheila Dikshit clearly in the wrong and ordered that while the contract can remain with the company, it will have to pay 39 per cent of its revenue to the government as penalty. As per the original contract, the French firm was supposed to give just 16 per cent of its revenue generated. Castigating the Dikshit Government for having “not acted reasonably and in accordance with the relevant rules” it castigated its inability to award a simple contract “efficiently and honestly”. But, surprisingly, Kejriwal Government remains mum. Mr Kejriwal has as yet to take cognizance of the verdict and announce any action against his predecessor.
As a leader of the ruling party and Chief Minister, Mr Kejriwal is no different from others in any way. Whenever a serious allegation is made against a ruling party leader, everyone has one stock reaction: The allegations are false and unfounded, politically motivated, and aimed at character assassination. When a court finds a minister guilty, those in power have many alibis to offer.
The ruling class sits in judgement over judicial pronouncements.
Take the case of Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti who as a lawyer was defending an employee accused of graft. The Special CBI judge has taken exception to the fact that both the lawyer (Bharti) and accused had contacted one of the prosecution witnesses (for what purpose, it need not be explained). The Court held that the “conduct of the accused Pawan Kumar and his advocate (Bharti) is not only highly objectionable and unethical….but also amounts to tampering with evidence”. The Law Minister hit back saying, “CBI is misusing its power and I was only to collect evidence to prove the innocence of my client.”
CM Kejriwal was supportive giving a ‘clean chit’ to Mr Bharti and expressing ‘respect’ for the law and the judiciary”, he declared, “I must say that in this case, the court’s observations were wrong…A sting operation has been called tampering of evidence.”
At the time of elections Mr Kejriwal tried to appear bold and different from other political parties and leaders. He boasted: his party does not only promise, it also delivers. During campaigning Kejriwal gave a word that a strong Delhi Lokpal, stronger than the one enacted by Parliament, shall be passed in Ramlila Maidan on December 29. That didn’t happen. Speaking on the confidence motion on January 2, he promised Lokpal shall be a reality within 15 days. Now like every other government, he has constituted a committee for the purpose.
Spot the difference between AAP and others, if you can!
The rebellion within Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is growing everyday. A day after AAP MLA Vinod Binny said Kejriwal Government in Delhi has failed to deliver, party’s new member, Captain Gopinath, came out against the Chief Minister’s decision of withdrawing FDI in retail. Binni also disclosed links between Kejriwal and former Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit’s son Sandeep Dikshit and said Kejriwal is making Delhiites fool. “Ours was an ideological fight. My only rift is that why are there ifs and buts about issues now,” Binni questioned.
Captain Gopinath even said that he would reconsider his membership if there is no ‘internal democracy’ in the party. “The AAP must step back, focus on Delhi before going for its national ambition,” he said. AAP member Tina Sharma also said that the party has not stood up to its words. “The 2013 manifesto said so many things. Now I cannot defend my party. So that’s the issue. Why are we directing only to the 2014 elections,” she said.
Maulik Bharat Trust filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in a Delhi Court on January 13 seeking cancelation of AAP leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s election, because he violated Section 33(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 by providing wrong information about his assets.
The PIL requested the court to order for a SIT/ CBI inquiry into the facts, which Kejriwal produced. It also sought verification and investigation of all the affidavits submitted by the candidates who contested assembly election 2013 in Delhi. The PIL sought a permanent mechanism to be framed by the Government or the Election Commission to check and verify affidavits of all candidates willing to contest election. The PIL cited the Supreme Court ruling on September 13, 2013 that said the Law backer cannot be a law maker.
The PIL points out that Kejriwal, in his affidavit to Election Commission, provided wrong details of his Indirapuram plot. “He also undervalued the cost of his property and mentioned its market value at Rs 55 lakh only, whereas the present fair market value of the property is approximately Rs 2.4 crore. On the basis of circle rate in Indirapuram (Rs 63000/ per square mt) also the cost of the property is Rs 1.4 crore. Area of the said plot is 222 square meter,” the PIL said.
The PIL said that Kejriwal did not provide correct address of the above said property and nobody can reach there, not even the postal department. “His intention was to present himself among voters as only a lakhpati, so he valued himself around Rs 92 lakh in total. It is clearly a case of suppression of facts and misleading the voters. He shows his annual income Rs 2.05 lakh per year, but he did not disclose the source of income, as he claims himself to be a social, political activist. In his affidavit he does not disclose the ownership of his present residence R-902, Girnar Apartment, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad even a newspaper published the electricity bill with his name on the same address. He is also a defaulter of UP Electricity Department.
In his affidavit he shows his residential address 41, Hanuman Road, New Delhi but never resided there. In his ‘Trust Deed of PCRF’ he shows his residential address as 403 L, Girnar, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, but its detail are missing in his election affidavit. Details of PCRF office address are also missing. In PCRF audited account of 2012, he shows that they return Rs 25.44 lakh to the 468 persons due to the lack of information of donor. It’s a contradictory fact in itself. In his affidavit he does not disclose his association with various NGO trust and society activities. Surprisingly in his affidavit he does not disclose any immovable property, insurance and FD etc. He took three year study leave with salary and after that he resigned. It is against the basic norms of honesty as he claims.
His allegation to the recruitment process and capability of Civil Servant and their exam at the time of receiving Ramon Magsaysay Award. He always shows distrust in Constitutional bodies. At the time of receiving this award he alleged that his senior asked him to accept bribe in the initial phase of his job but he never disclosed the name of that officer to any prosecution agency.
—Bureau Report
Leave a Comment