[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]A[/dropcap] defiant BJP MP Kirti Azad has said that the DDCA matter was out of the purview of the party’s discipline and asked party president Amit Shah to provide him with specific instances of anti-party activities that led to his suspension from the party with which he has been associated for the last 23 years.
“I request you to provide me at the earliest instances and proof that I have indulged in anti party activities, so that I could clear the air and answer to your satisfaction, confirming that I have neither acted against the party’s constitution nor against the interests of the party,” Azad said in his reply to the show cause issued by Amit Shah while putting him under suspension.
Referring to the DDCA scandal the expose of which by Azad led to his suspension as the revelations threatened to implicate Finance minister Arun Jaitley in serious charges of corruption, Azad said, ”As you’ve not mentioned DDCA corruption, I believe that the party has nothing to do with the matter and is purely out of his purview”.
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]J[/dropcap]aitley was the President of the scandal-ridden Delhi District Cricket Association for 14 years until 2013. During this period a series of financial irregularities took place in the DDCA.
Kirti’s reply to Shah is understood to have been drafted by senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy. Confirming this Kirit had said on Thursday that, “I have received the suspension notice and will respond to it. Subramanian Swamy has assured of help in drafting the reply”.
Dr. Swamy, who does not see eye to eye with Arun Jaitley, had tweeted that, ”Kirti issues are 1. Is Cricket affair within the purview of party discipline. 2. Due to SC case on BCCI,is party decision amenable in court.”
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]M[/dropcap]eanwhile, as expected, Delhi lieutenant-governor Najeeb Jung has come to rescue of Arun Jaitley, by recommending to the Centre to set aside the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Arvind Kejriwal government to probe the DDCA scandal.
Jung is understood to have written to the Home ministry that the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 empowers only the Centre and state governments to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Jung has said since Delhi did not enjoy full statehood, the concurrence of the Centre through the LG was mandatory for setting up such an inquiry.
It is unlikely that the Home Ministry will turn down the recommendation of the Delhi Lieutenant-governor and allow the Kejriwal government to probe the DDCA scandal. However, such decision will also open the Modi government to serious criticism from those who feel that the DDCA is a den corruption and its loot should be probed and guilty punished.
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]I[/dropcap]n the event of the Home ministry rejecting Kejriwal government’s decision to set up the inquiry, the matter is likely to be settled in the court of law. Former India captain Bishen Singh Bedi and Kirti Azad have already said they would approach the High court and seek a court-monitored probe in the DDCA scandal.
There is a typographical error in the letter above. Tenet is mis-spelled as Tent.