INDIA


treatment at a hospital in Portugal.


The Lok Sabha discussed an adjournment motion on 12 August, regarding the “action taken by the government on the reported involvement and admission of the Union Minister and related acts and actions in assisting a fugitive and stand taken by the Government in this regard.” Moving the motion, the leader of the INC in Lok Sabha, Shri Mallikarjun Kharge said it would have been better had his proposal for an adjournment motion been accepted four weeks ago. He charged that the Minister of External Affairs had supported a fugitive and helped that person even after knowing everything about him. The Minister helped a person who had failed to appear before the Enforcement Directorate even after being asked frequently following which his passport was cancelled. Many cases of economic offence were pending against Lalit Modi. Asking the British Government to provide travel document to Lalit Modi even on humanitarian grounds was against the law and the Minister must resign. She had said that it would not affect the bilateral ties of the two countries whereas the UPA Government had warned the UK Government that if they gave travel documents, it could impact the bilateral relations. Telling the High Commissioner of the UK that giving travel documents to someone would not impact bilateral relations was nothing but a recommendation. Shri Kharge wanted to know who had taken the decision to issue a new passport to Lalit Modi and whether the government of India had


lodged its objection with the UK government for giving visa or residency permit to Lalit Modi. The INC leader demanded the resignation of the Foreign Affairs Minister on moral grounds for her direct or indirect involvement in in the matter.


Intervening in the debate, Smt. Swaraj asserted that she had done no wrong. It was never under her consideration to facilitate granting of travel documents to Lalit Modi. What was under her consideration was that if the British Government decided to grant travel documents to Lalit Modi then it would not adversely impact the bilateral relations. Thereupon, she verbally conveyed the message to the British Authorities that it would not adversely impact the bilateral relations and the British Government granted the travel documents to Lalit Modi in accordance with their rules. There was no question of committing a criminal offence as no court had declared Lalit Modi as an absconder or fugitive. Dr P. Venugopa (AIADMK) said whosoever was involved in the IPL scam should be punished. The government should take stringent action against Lalit Modi for misusing the travel documents to visit foreign countries and for diverting a lot of ill-gotten money. He hoped that the government would take appropriate action in the future to make the IPL free from controversies and corruption. Shri Dinesh Trivedi (AITC) said their party and its leader, Kumari Mamta Banerjee had always fought against corruption. The BJD MP, Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab suggested that members should read the report


79 | The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue One


and action taken by the government on the observations/


recommendations contained in the Thirty-eighth Report (15th


Lok Sabha) on the


Subject ‘Tax Assessment/ Exemptions and Related Matters Concerning IPL/ BCCI’ presented to Parliament by the Standing Committee on Finance on 16 December 2014. It was corruption that would make the body politic democracy weak and here was a case which needed appropriate action from the government side which had just started. Shri Anandrao Adsul (Shiv Sena) opposing the motion blamed the Congress members for wasting the time of the House. Shri Thota Narasimham (TDP) said the allegations leveled against the External Affairs Minister were absolutely baseless. The fact was that when the IPL scam broke out the then UPA government did nothing to stop the individual in question from escaping to Britain. He requested the opposition to let the House to function smoothly so that many pressing issues could be discussed.


Shri A.P. Jithender Reddy (TRS) said it was unfortunate that the image of a sport like cricket which was played and watched by all groups of people passionately was tarnished by some mala fide interests. The sanctity of the sports must be protected and suitable action should be taken against the accused in a time bound manner. Shri P. Karunakaran (CPI-M) observed that the main issue involved breaking of the standard protocol by the Foreign Minister. He wanted to know whether the decision to tell the British High Commissioner in


New Delhi that if the British Government chose to give travel documents to the then IPL Chief that would not spoil bilateral relations was taken with the knowledge of the Prime Minister and whether it was discussed in the Cabinet. Shri M. Raja Mohan


Reddy (YSR Congress) wanted everything to be investigated thoroughly to decide the case on its merits and not just because somebody had leveled allegations against someone. Shri Prem Singh Chandumajra (SAD) was of the view that the Foreign Minister had acted legally in the case in question. Shri Tariq Anwar (INC) argued that morality in public life was a very important thing and whenever such occasions arose one should keep the dignity of the nation utmost in the mind. Whenever such kind of question mark was put on one’s public life, it would be better for the person to exonerate himself or herself of the same. Shri Bhagwant Mann (APP) said his party had raised its voice against any kind of corruption and the government should take stern action against the offender in this case. Shri E.T. Mohammad


Basheer (IUML) alleged that the government had a soft corner for Lalit Modi and the External Affairs Minister had abused power by helping an economic offender.


Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM), while supporting the adjournment motion was surprised that after disrupting the House for so many days, the Congress party ultimately agreed on a discussion and gave the opportunity to the Minister of External Affairs to put forth her views. He said the Prime Minister should


The Parliamentarian | 2016: Issue One | 79


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92