New Delhi, October 7
Justice S N Phukan, who was heading the commission of inquiry into the Tehelka expose, today categorically said that the panel never tried to protect any political personality and it would have submitted a comprehensive report within the next three months had it been granted an extension as sought.
“There was no delay (from the commission’s side).... We would have submitted a comprehensive report on the Tehelka expose within the next six months had the tenure been extended, “ Justice Phukan told The Tribune in an exclusive interview here.
Justice Phukan’s statement assumed significance in the wake of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reported remarks yesterday in Mumbai that the commission had not been able to produce a report in its three-year stint.
“What is the guarantee that it will come out with a report after getting an extension of three months sought by it?” Dr Manmohan Singh had asked.
Asserting that the commission had faced situations beyond its control, Justice Phukan said, “I joined this commission only on January 20, 2003, and since earlier counsels (engaged by my predecessor Justice Venkataswami) had resigned, I had to appoint fresh counsels, who needed some time to go through the documents.”
“Moreover, there was an application pending before the commission for sending the Tehelka tapes for forensic examination by independent experts. My predecessor kept this matter open by orders dated October 12, 2001, and January 16, 2002.
“My predecessor had said that it was made clear after examining 8(B) notices, including tehelka.com, if a case was made out for sending tapes for forensic examination, this commission would definitely consider at that time. The Delhi High Court approved this order. Subsequently, Justice Venkataswami resigned on November 23, 2002. I took charge on January 20, 2003, and tapes were sent for forensic examination in May 2003. The reports of forensic examination were received from London only in April 2004.”
After having submitted a report on the 15 big defence deals, the commission was to inquire into the alleged misuse of the premises of the then Defence Minister George Fernandes and also examine various written submissions made by parties concerned, he said.
“Meanwhile, with the change of government, the government counsels also changed. The government counsel initially asked for three weeks’ time and subsequently asked for another six weeks’ time.
“On October 1, the government counsel filed an affidavit saying that the question of motive behind the journalistic exposure was not relevant and could not be the subject matter of inquiry by the commission.
“On the same day, First Global (tehelka.com’s alleged financier) filed an application seeking permission to cross-examine those who had filed affidavit against it such as SEBI and ED etc.
“Based on this, the commission fixed a hearing on October 8, but we came to know about the government’s decision to scrap the commission through news reports,” he said.
Asked to comment on the allegations that the commission tried to protect some political personalities in its report submitted in February this year, Justice Phukan shot back saying “I have not protected any political personalities. You have to ask those who are making these allegations. I have seen politicians making different statements.”
While refusing to comment on the probable motives behind the UPA government’s decision not to extend the tenure of the commission, Justice Phukan asserted that the commission had already submitted the “final report” pertaining to the 15 sensitive defence deals from the period between 1990 to 2000.
“The report submitted by me on February 4, 2004, was not an interim report, but the final report in respect of the 14 defence deals and one transaction relating to Kandla-Bathinda pipeline during the period between 1990 to 2000. That report contained commission’s detailed findings, suggestions and recommendations, “ he said.
In this context, it may be recalled that the then NDA government had asked the commission probing the Tehelka expose to go into 15 defence deals, including major deals like Carl Gustav Rocket Launcher, Advanced Jet Trainers, T-90 Tanks, Barak Anti-Missile Defence System, Sukhoi and Krasnopol.
On being asked whether the findings of the commission reflected corruption in defence deals, Justice Phukan evaded a direct answer.
“I can only smile”, was his cryptic, but rather stern reply.
