New Delhi:
A day after Law Minister Salman Khurshid addressed the media, hitting back at the allegations that his NGO in Uttar Pradesh siphoned Rs. 71 lakh meant to help differently-abled people in the state, the UP Economic Offences Wing (EOW) is taking a look at the documents related to Mr Khurshid's Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust. Meanwhile, the Law Minister has also decided to sue the India Today Group for over Rs 200 crores. The Group's Hindi channel Aaj Tak had carried out the sting operation and made the allegations.
Here are the latest developments in this story:
The Economic Offences Wing has asked for papers from all the 17 districts of Uttar Pradesh where Mr Khurshid's Trust held camps for the disabled. The Director General of the state's EOW has told NDTV that this is just a step in the process of conducting their enquiry.
Activist-turned-politician Arvind Kejriwal has said that an inquiry against Mr Khurshid, initiated by the UP government, cannot be impartial. He said that Mulayam Singh Yadav, whose son Akhilesh is the Chief Minister of UP, is being investigated for corruption. Mr Kejriwal alleged that Mr Yadav and the Congress could trade favours. (Read more)
Mr Kejriwal yesterday offered what he described as more proof against the minister. At a sit-in protest in Delhi, he produced three differently-abled people whose names allegedly figure on the list of beneficiaries of the minister's trust; they deny they were helped by the trust in 2011.
Mr Kejriwal's India Against Corruption, which has been protesting at Parliament Street for the last four days demanding the dismissal of Mr Khurshid, will now take their protest to Farrukabad in Uttar Pradesh, which is the constituency of Mr Khurshid.
Coming to the defence of Mr Khurshid in the alleged scandal, senior Cabinet minister from Uttar Pradesh Beni Prasad Verma made a bizzare statement on Monday. He said Rs. 71 lakh is too small an amount for any Central minister to embezzle. "I believe Salman Khurshid could not have embezzled Rs. 71 lakh," he said, "Rs. 71 lakh is a very small amount for a Central minister. I would have taken it seriously if the amount was Rs. 71 crore." (Read more)
Hours later, Mr Verma said he had been misquoted. "Corruption is corruption, even if it is for one rupee," he said. He pointed out that if Mr Khurshid had anything to hide, he would not have asked for an inquiry into the alleged financial violations of his NGO. And then he repeated, "Salman Khurshid is a big personality... he won't do this for 71 lakhs."
Congress General Secretary Digvijaya Singh told NDTV, "He (Arvind Kejriwal) came to me in 2010 with Swami Agnivesh and requested me that I should promote his name to become a member of the NAC. Probably Soniaji knew more about him than me, so she refused." Mr Singh also said Mr Kejriwal wants to foist his opinion without proper evidence. "Na khata na bahi, jo Kejriwal kahe woh sahi (No documents or evidence, but whatever Kejriwal says must be considered true)." (Watch | Read more)
Senior Congress leader Ambika Soni too backed the Law Minister. "Khurshid's trust has done good work, it's on record. There is no question of isolating him, he is an important minister of the UPA. We cannot respond to Kejriwal all the time," she said.
Meanwhile, the Law Minister has decided to file multiple law suits against the India Today group, which carried out the sting operation and made the allegations. Mr Khurshid is filing a Rs. 200 crore defamation suit against the India Today group in the Bombay High Court. He is also suing them for five million pounds in London. That's not all - a Rs. 71 lakh suit is being filed in Delhi too.
Last week, Hindi TV channel Aaj Tak broadcasted a sting stating that the money, meant to buy equipment for special-needs residents in Uttar Pradesh, was released to the NGO on the basis of forged documents. The signatures of UP government officials were allegedly forged on documents that testified that camps were held in different parts of UP to distribute equipment like hearing aid, crutches and mechanized tricycles for the differently-abled.
Post a comment