| Law appears to have been violated in National Herald case, says Jaitley |
New Delhi | 12th Jul 2014 |
 |  Finance Minister Arun Jaitley (l) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. run Jaitley, the most influential minister in the National Democratic Alliance government has said that the law seems to have been violated in the National Herald case. In his first political interview after coming to power, he said that there is no law which states that the Gandhis and the Congress are not bound by income tax regulations. Every political party which collects funds is exempted from paying income tax. However, there are conditions to this exemption: you cannot divert this money to a newspaper company, which does not publish a newspaper anymore. The allegation is that the exempted tax money has apparently been diverted to a real estate business. The matter is being examined by the concerned authorities. Talking about the controversy regarding the appointment of Prime Minister's adviser Nripendra Mishra, Jaitley asked, shouldn't the Prime Minister have the right to choose his aide; politics should focus on bigger issues. Referring to the Leader of Opposition (LoP) debate, Jaitley observed that the Congress could not stake its claim to the post. There were no LoPs after six general elections and that people's mandate this time showed that they did not want the Congress to be a recognised opposition in Parliament. He also defended the appointment of Amit Shah as the president of the Bharatiya Janata Party: His abilities have been proven; he deserves to be rewarded for the good showing in Uttar Pradesh; he is not tainted but he has been victimised; let the courts decide on Amit Shah. Text of the interview: ON NRIPENDRA MISHRA Q: There is great reservation in the Opposition over the appointment of Nripendra Mishra as we saw in Parliament today. A: I feel sorry for the Congress. Which officer should be appointed as PM's Principal Secretary, if that is the best issue that they have then it is a party without an issue. For every regulator in the country, the law is uniform. If you are a regulator, then for the next two years you can't work in the government. This was one of the first regulatory laws which said that if you are a regulator you can never work in the government. Every other Act has a two-year combination. Q: But you knew when you were appointing Mr Mishra that the law still applied. A: Therefore, we got an ordinance before we appointed him. The Congress wants to block the ordinance. Q: Even the Trinamool Congress is protesting. A: A Prime Minister is entitled to an officer of his choice. If this officer has worked in a regulatory authority 10 years ago and the law has been brought at par with all other regulatory laws, if the Congress thinks that by just speaking against the law... Q: Do you think they are making it personal against Mr Modi? A: I would say that we in politics should look for bigger issues. Q: You don't have the numbers in the Rajya Sabha. What are the options you are looking at? A: There are many options. Let the Bill go through the Lok Sabha, then we will see when it comes to the Rajya Sabha. ON LEADER OF OPPOSITION STATUS TO CONGRESS Q: What do you have to say on the LoP (Leader of Opposition) issue? A: The LoP is a pathetic case. After 1977 you have a law which says that even if there is no 10% (of Lok Sabha seats) you must have an LoP. However, it doesn't say who should be the LoP. The language it uses is that LoP is recognised as such that the recognition is governed by Speaker's directive 121. In 1980 and 1984, there was no Leader of Opposition. Q: Let's say it was a bad precedence. A: There is a value of precedence in Indian democracy. There are six elections in India where we didn't have an LoP. The popular mandate is that they want the Congress in opposition but they don't want it to be a recognised opposition. If they wanted them to be a recognised opposition they would have given them 11 seats more. In a democracy, the mandate has to be respected. What would the Congress have done if the situation was reverse. Q: There is a feeling that Congress may move court. A: They can choose court now as they have been rejected in the public forum. They are free to move court, but recognition as LoP is the Speaker's directive. In the past, Speakers have rejected court notice also. In a democracy, the Speaker has extreme powers on what he is supposed to do. According to me, Parliament is governed by parliamentary practices and nothing else ON CRIMINALITY IN THE NATIONAL HERALD CASE Q: She (Sonia Gandhi) has gone on to say that that IT probe into the National Herald case follows from a strain of vengeful politics. A: Now that you have asked the question, let's get onto the facts. Every political party which collects fund is exempted from paying income tax. When it is exempted for paying income tax, there are conditions for exemptions. The condition of exemption is ... exempted money will be used for exempted purpose, which is a political purpose. In this case, you collect money for the exempted purpose and you divert money to a newspaper company. The newspaper company has stopped doing business, there is no newspaper. The newspaper company in turn gives it to a real estate company, which only owns property and lifts the amount. So the tax exempted money collected by a national political party, for an exempted purpose, is diverted to a real estate business. On the face of it there are some violations of law. A complaint is received by the income tax department. There is no law and the Congress or the Gandhis are not bound by the income tax law — we have not reached such a terrible state in this country. The I-T Department asks those companies; please give us some documents so that we can make sure from where you got the money from. So the fact of exempted money being used for non exempted purpose prime facie should be verified, so if the I-T Department verifies it, because it's a violation of law by those who thought they are privileged. They may call it "vendetta". On the face of it, you violated the law. Q: Well the Congress spokespeople who go to channel to channel ... have said, that look we are not complaining, it's Dr Subramanian Swamy and he has no locus standi. A: It's an absurd argument. Any citizen is entitled to say that exempted money is revenue sacrificed by the people. It's revenue sacrificed by the government. The revenue sacrificed by the government is either for a political purpose or a charitable purpose, in case of charitable organisation. If a charitable organisation collects money in the name of charity and transfers the money to a real estate company, what would you do? This case is at par with them. Money is collected for an exempted purpose, political purpose, transferred through a pass mechanism. Pass through is a newspaper company and it passes then to a real estate company. And nobody should inquire into us! I remember the Emergency where Indira Gandhi passes a law that if a PM commits an illegality it won't be inquired into, the law was meant only for her. The Supreme Court even in that Emergency had struck the law down. The 39th Amendment of the Constitution. There is no law in India today that any individual or party or a family is so privileged that prima facie they violate the law ... let them be inquired into. ON AMIT SHAH'S ELEVATION Q: Mr Amit Shah's appointment has been seen as a complete "Modification" of the BJP, would you go along with that? A: I think Amit is a very senior leader in his own rights. He has been the minister in a state. He has been a senior party functionary. He has been a general secretary and he is a man of proven abilities. And he was a special target of the UPA government. So Mr Amit Shah's performance in Uttar Pradesh certainly deserves to be noticed. 73 seats out of 80. He has done the unthinkable and therefore I think we must be fair to give him credit for his capacity and he is much more than being anybody's man. Q: But he will be the first BJP president to have serious criminal cases against him. Does that come into the calculus at all? A: Well I had seven cases against me in the Emergency. Each one of them was fake. Now if the Congress had let loose the CBI on Amit Shah and one by one each of the cases is falling on the wayside... So you victimise one of our best people and say since we victimise him, keep him out — we are not going to accept that. Q: So you are saying vendetta is not part of the... A: I am not even claiming vendetta. The courts will decide that matter. The court that gave Amit Shah bail said prima facie that there is no case. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/law-appears-to-have-been-violated-in-national-herald-case-says-jaitley |