|
Following is the full text of the accompanying note on the Justice S N Phukan Commission Part Report which was tabled by Defence Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee in Lok Sabha today :-
An inquiry under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act was notified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and 'Pensions (Department Of Personnel and Training) on 24th March, 2001 to inquire into certain allegations of corruption made in videotapes and transcripts released by tehelka. com. The terms of inquiry were:
(a) to inquire whether the transactions relating to Defence and other procurements referred to in the said videotapes and transcripts have been carried out in terms of the prescribed procedures and the imperatives of national security. .
(b) to inquire whether in any of the aforesaid procurement transactions, illicit gains have been made by persons in Public Office, individuals, and any other organization as alleged, and if so, to what extent.
(c) to suggest action that may be taken in respect of persons who may be found responsible by the Commission for their acts of commission and/or omission in respect of the transactions referred to in sub-clause (a) above.
(d) to inquire into all aspects relating to the making and publication of these allegations and any other matter which arises from or is connected with or incidental to any act, omission or transaction referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (b) above.
The Commission was given a term of 4 months to submit its report.
2. Justice Venkataswami, who was initially appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry Commission resigned from it on 25th November, 2002 and Justice Phukan took over as its Chairman on 4th January, 2003. The Inquiry Commission was appointed in the wake of allegations made in the videotapes and transcripts of tehelka.com on charges of corruption in several defence transactions. The terms of the Commission also specifically included the question of illicit gains by persons in public office, individuals and any other organization. However, the Part Report, which was submitted to the then Prime Minister on 4th February, 2004 did not cover this aspect at all. Its recommendations covered only the terms (a) and (c), which related only to prescribed procedures in these defence and other procurement deals and the imperatives of national security. The Part Report specifically mentioned that it had planned to deal with the role of the various noticees in subsequent parts. Even in the matter of procedure, the Commission found a number of irregularities and made recommendations for further inquiry in 13 out of the 15 cases which it had examined. The term relating to following of the prescribed procedure in these transactions (term b) was inextricably interlinked with other terms, including those relating to corruption charges. The appointment of the Commission was primarily to investigate into the serious charges of corruption, as had been prima facie established, which prompted the p! revious Government to constitute the Commission. If the Commission has accepted that violations of procedure did take place, it was incumbent upon it to complete the investigation as per term ‘c' of the terms of reference to establish the nexus, if any, with term of reference ‘b'. Any finding on other issues without investigation into the main charge will necessarily be an incomplete one and cannot be treated as the final conclusion of the Commission even on such issues. Upon perusing the proceedings before the Justice Phukhan Commission, it is clear that Justice Phukhan in arriving at his conclusions has not appropriately dealt with the submissions of the Commission's counsel, submitted in writing, with reference to almost all the fifteen transactions, that cases of wrongdoing with reference to most of the transactions were made out, without absolv! ing any particular individual. Even the conclusions arrived at by Justice Phukan are bereft of reasoning. The Government does not consider this a satisfactory way of dealing with such serious issues. Government has, therefore, not found it possible to accept its findings in the absence of any inquiry on the allegations of corruption, which was to be done under term 'b' of the terms of reference. In spite of a period of more than three and a half years, the Commission could not complete its work. The Government has, therefore, decided to entrust the entire inquiry on the 15 transactions (Annexure-I) mentioned in the above videotapes to CBI for a thorough investigation. Further action in this matter would, therefore, be taken after the investigations by the CBI are completed.
3. The Commission was wound up on October 4, 2004. The Government had consulted the Attorney General on the requirement of laying the Part Report within six months of its submission on the Table of the Houses of Parliament. It was Attorney General's advice that no such obligation was cast on the Government in respect of a Part Report of a Commission. However, on the directions of the H'ble Speaker, the Government is laying the Part Report, though it is necessarily an incomplete one on the Table of the House. The Part Report contains the prologue and conclusions (arrived at even before the completion of the inquiry) in respect of the 15 past transactions with recommendations, along with this note.
Annexure-I
Items discussed in the Justice S.N. Phukhan Commission of Inquiry.
1. Image Intensifier Tubes.
2. Carl Gustav Rocket Launcher Mk III.
3. Simulators.
4. Light Weight Binoculars.
5. Hand Held Thermal Imagers.
6. Krasnopol.
7. Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT). .
8. Armoured Recovery Vehicle.
9. Barak.
10. T -90S tanks.
11. Upgunning of 130 mm guns to 155mm.
12. Tank Navigation System.
13. Kandla Bhatinda Pipeline.
14. Sukhoi-30 MK.
15. Kornet E.
SKS/PS
|
