Harshad mehta story: Prime Minister P.V. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has closed the investigation of the charge of taking a bribe of Rs 1 crore on July 16 by share broker Harshad Mehta on Narsingh Rao on the advice of the Law Ministry. The CBI says that no case can be registered on the basis of this allegation, as the legal conditions required for this have not been met. The CBI also clarified that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the legal conditions that are required to register an FIR against a public servant, the allegations made by Harshad Mehta do not live up to those parameters.
Another shocking fact in this process was that a photocopy was presented in place of the original copy of the affidavit sent to the CBI by Harshad Mehta’s lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani. The CBI rejected the charge on this basis. But it is neither rational nor justified to dismiss such a big sensitive allegation on the basis of just a photocopy. If the decision was to be taken on technical grounds, Jethmalani must have been given another opportunity to present the original copy. By not doing so, the Central Government itself has raised a question mark on its law and fairness.
It should not be hesitant to accept that Harshad Mehta’s allegations can also be baseless, but when the assembly election process is going on in five states, this action taken by the CBI at that time raises a question mark on the image of the Prime Minister itself. This creates the assumption that the central government is using the CBI improperly to prove the Prime Minister innocent. Failing in immediate and fair action on this charge is a sad and embarrassing achievement of the CBI, which cannot be ignored.
In fact, the legal basis provided to the CBI has been provided by the same Law Ministry led by Prime Minister Rao, whose own credibility has been under suspicion for a long time. This issue is not only legal, but social and moral. Harshad Mehta has hurt not only a person, but also on the transparency of the entire political-social system, which has exposed corruption that has arisen and strengthened within the system for decades.
Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) chairman Ram Niwas Mirdha’s statement that “no final decision has been taken on this issue so far and the committee can consider it in future,” indicates that the decisions of both CBI and Law Ministry are under suspicion. If there is no legal basis in this charge, then why did Mirdha need to make a double statements like this? It would be appropriate to remind that the transparency of the same Joint Parliamentary Committee was questioned in the Bofors episode, and eventually its credibility stood in the dock.
It is clear that the efforts being made to settle the matter only from a legal point of view are not immoral if not illegal. This is not just a matter of saving one person, but is a question of saving the roots of democracy. If the Prime Minister is really innocent, he should pave the way for a person like Harshad Mehta to get a judicial punishment. But when the CBI’s role seems suspicious, it is not difficult to understand that the government is misusing the investigating agencies and administrative system for political interests.
This act of CBI shows that the government wants to take political advantage in the elections of five states by proving the Prime Minister “clean”. It is clear that this whole incident is against the basic principles of democracy, the soul of law and the concept of fair rule.
This is not just a dispute, but a test of transparency between power, investigation and trilogy – in which power is still seen in the dock.
(Here is the article “This is not cured” sophisticated, complete and well-known version. Without removing no fraction, the appropriate expansion has been added, and the old references have been tested on the test of contemporary sensation and logic. The dignity and emotion of the language have been kept as it is. The dignity and sentiment of the language has been kept.
