A probe and some questions

What next for the Venkataswami Commission of Inquiry relating to the Tehelka expose?

WITH the term of the K. Venkataswami Commission which is investigating the Tehelka expose due to end on July 24, the possible political impact or effect that any interim report that the Commission may come up with will have on the Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh is being keenly watched. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has much at stake in Uttar Pradesh, and for its National Democratic Alliance partner Samata Party and the party's leader George Fernandes, who had to step down as Defence Minister in the wake of the Tehelka expose, it may well be a make-or-break situation. By means of depositions made by its top leaders before the Liberhan Commission the BJP has already converted it into a forum that could be used to set the agenda for the elections.

The Venkataswami Commission was appointed on March 24 to ascertain whether any transactions relating to defence and other procurements referred to in the Tehelka videotapes and transcripts were carried out, and if so, whether they were carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedures and considering the imperatives of national security. It was also asked to ascertain whether in any of the transactions illicit gains were made by persons in public office or other individuals or any organisation as alleged and, if so, to what extent. The Commission was required to suggest action that may be taken against persons who may be found responsible for acts of commission and/or omission in respect of transactions referred to in the videotapes. It was also asked to look into all aspects relating to the making of these allegations or any other matter that arises from or is connected with or is incidental to any act of omission or commission in respect of the transactions referred to (Frontline, April 13, 2001).

The Commission, which held its first sitting on May 31, had held its sessions at Vigyan Bhavan about six times in the first two weeks of July. About 25 persons responded to its notification inviting affidavits from the general public. It issued notice to 45 persons, who include Defence Secretary Yogendra Narain, Union Home Secretary Kamal Pandey, Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) Director Shyamal Dutta, television channels including Zee TV, Doordarshan and NDTV, besides reporters Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel and Tehelka's chief executive and editor Tarun Tejpal.

At present, the Commission is engaged in collecting facts about the case. The task relating to making some Defence Ministry documents public tops its agenda. The Ministry has expressed itself against the Commission making public the sensitive documents it had presented in support of its affidavits. However, it has not opposed making its affidavits public.

After viewing the tapes, the Defence Ministry identified 13 transactions, which it has decided to take up during the Commission's hearings. These concern deals relating to Sukhoi aircraft, night vision binoculars, T-90 tanks and Barak missiles. The Ministry has submitted to the Commission 410 files and documents. In respect of certain sensitive files among these, it has claimed privilege. In an application to the Commission, the Ministry has said that these files should not be circulated before the issue of notices. Counsel for the Tehelka has argued that no case can be presented without evidence.

ANOTHER issue before the Commission relates to the demand for viewing unedited tapes. This has come from lawyers representing various Central government and Army officials. "Two sets of tapes have been submitted before the Commission. The first is the edited version of the Tehelka recordings, which were shown by the television channels at the time of the expose. The second is the four-and-a-half hour footage, which has also been made public. Counsel for the Defence Ministry, the government and many others insisted on viewing also the rest of the 90-hour tape," Tehelka's counsel Siddharth Dave told Frontline.

Those who demanded that these tapes be shown referred to the "Tamil Nadu video war". While making a strong case for this, counsel for P. Sasi, a civilian employee in the Defence Department, drew an analogy with the controversial video footage telecast on a private channel (on the arrest of former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi in Chennai on June 30) that pointed to the possibility that videotapes can be doctored. "Therefore, it is relevant that we view the tapes. It is necessary for natural justice," he said.

However, counsel for the Commission Gopal Subramanium said that there was no need to provide tapes or transcripts until a notice under Section 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, was issued to individuals. The Commission is required by law to issue this notice to every person whose conduct is likely to come under scrutiny or whose reputation is likely to be affected by it. The notice also puts the person on guard and ensures that he or she is given a fair opportunity to present his or her case during the inquiry. Subramanium said that individual respondents would be given enough time to protect their reputation and so they should be provided with the transcripts and a schedule.

Rejecting the demand as a "premature" one, the Commission ruled against viewing the tapes. Justice Venkataswami said in his order: "The supply of the unedited tapes that run to 100 hours is not only not practicable but also not advisable. The request for the supply of the unedited tapes, the transcript thereof and also the statements of others who have responded to notices is premature and to a certain extent anticipates issuance of notices under Section 8-B of the Act (for cross examination)."

While the conclusions of the Venkataswami Commission will take some time to come, the Army and Defence Ministry inquiries have already come up with their reports. That the Army had taken a serious note of the breaches of conduct by its officials became clear immediately after the expose on March 13, 2001. The Chief of the Army Staff, General S. Padmanabhan, had warned the "black sheep" in the force that they would not be spared and that they could not "tarnish the image of the entire force". In a message to his officers and men, the Army chief had said: "As you are aware of the media focus on shady defence deals, regrettably there are one or two black sheep among us. But they will not be allowed to tarnish the image of the entire force."

A three-man Army Court of Inquiry was set up under Lt. General S.K. Jain mainly to probe allegations of corruption contained in the Tehelka report against four serving officers - Major-General P.S.K. Choudhary, who was the Additional Director-General, Ordnance and Supply; Major General Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, Director General of Ordnance and Supply; Brigadier Iqbal Singh, Prospective Procurement Officer; and Colonel Anil Sehgal, Director in the Directorate-General of Ordnance and Supply. In order to try and restore the Army's morale and credibility, the Army Court of Inquiry conducted its investigation with remarkable speed.

The Army Court of Inquiry studied the Tehelka tapes and collected detailed defence statements from Choudhary, who was suspended. It also interrogated Tejpal, Bahal and Mathew, who responded to the request made by the court. It submitted its report indicting four Army officials. The court's findings have been submitted before the higher-ups, who will now decide whether to take administrative or disciplinary action against the officers.

The Army does not want to initiate any court martial proceedings against these officials in a hasty manner as they are being examined also by the Venkataswami Commission.

It does not want to follow a course of action that may be overridden by the Commission. One of the accused officers approached the Commission with the request that as two inquiries - the Commission's and the Army court's - were going on against him, he be exempted from presenting evidence in one of them. He withdrew his application when the Commission made it clear that such a plea could not be entertained. Justice Venkataswami said: "The officer had been asked only to bring to the notice of the Commission the facts known to him relating to the expose. There is no compulsion for him to disclose his defence at this stage."

In another directive, on March 22, the Defence Ministry formed a committee under the Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, R.P. Bagai, which too has submitted its report to Defence Minister Jaswant Singh. The committee was asked to look into transactions relating to the procurement of weapons and find out whether prescribed procedures were followed in the deals. Bagai was asked to find whether the existing procurement procedures could be manipulated by individuals for extraneous considerations. The committee was also told to suggest appropriate modifications to the procurement system.

The Bagai Committee submitted its report to the Defence Minister by May end. Prima facie it found three civilian officials - H.C. Pant, Narendra Singh and P. Sasi - guilty of corruption. In its expose, Tehelka had videotaped Pant allegedly receiving Rs. 50,000 in three instalments, Sasi allegedly taking Rs. 20,000 and Narendra Singh Rs. 10,000. A Defence Ministry spokesperson said: "The disciplinary authority of these three officials will scrutinise the matter and decide on their punishment."

The fate of the officials as also the political bigwigs will become clear later. For now, what is under speculation is the fate of the Commission as also any political pressures it faces.