A-G sent U-turn affidavit the day after UPA’s clean chit to George

Consider the sequence of events:

• Responding to a PIL which asked the Centre to explain action taken on a CAG report on irregularities in Kargil war purchases, the Defence Ministry filed an affidavit in the apex court on March 10 saying that purchases ‘‘in no way violated any of the financial rules.’’

• On April 5, the affidavit giving a clean chit to Fernandes was made public.

• The same day, Bannerjee, in a letter to Defence Secretary Ajai Vikram Singh—received by Singh’s office on April 6—claimed: ‘‘I am sorry that it was not possible for the Department to file the affidavit which had been prepared by Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate, under my guidance.’’

• In his April 5 letter, Bannerjee added: ‘‘I am drawing your attention to an Order passed on March 14, 2005 by a Supreme Court bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in the above matter. The Bench appeared to be in agreement with the submission of the Amicus Curiae that the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India was evasive. I have promised to look into the matter. The Order has already been faxed earlier to your office. A copy is appended herewith.’’

• ‘‘Any additional affidavit should focus on identifying persons responsible and/or any event highlighting facts which point out responsibility. In any event I will now have to place my own interpretation on facts for benefit of the Court,’’ Bannerjee wrote.

• The April 5 letter was followed by another letter to Singh on April 6 stating: ‘‘Following my talk on telephone with you today, I am sending copy of fresh affidavit that is to be filed in the above matter… I would be grateful if the affidavit can be affirmed at the earliest without changes only except correction of factual errors. Since the previous affidavit that has been filed had the approval of the Defence Minister, perhaps you may like to have his approval in this also.’’

• The second affidavit was filed on April 13.

When asked to explain why his office had taken so long to react to the first affidavit and whether it had been filed in the court without his approval, the AG refused to comment.

The second affidavit, a virtual U-turn from the first, states that the Defence Ministry had so far ‘‘scrutinized’’ five transactions: Hand Held Thermal Imagers; Terminally Guided Munitions (Krasnapol); Ammunition for T -72 tanks; Aluminium Caskets.

‘‘It had already been decided to refer two out of the five cases to CBI as they also featured in the Tehelka Tapes. The other three cases namely Ammunition for T-72 tanks, Ammunition and Aluminium Caskets are also being referred to CBI for investigation,’’ the new affidavit stated.

The affidavit now uses the CAG report of December 2001 to say that it had brought out ‘‘that the modified procurement procedure was used to push through deals in the name of Kargil long after hostilities had ceased and if the deals were scrutinized in normal circumstances, these would not have been entered into thereby suggesting misconduct on the part of officials/authorities in the government including the then Defence Minister.’’

The affidavit states: ‘‘The government is committed to take strict action against officers/authorities, including the former Defence Minister if it is found that the excuse of Kargil was taken to make purchases with a motive of personal benefit in violation of rules and regulations.’’