A judgment miscall

So, many would say, is the storm over the CBDT8217;s ill-advised decision to select the finance minister8217;s wife to represent it. Personally, I believe P. Chidambaram8217;s protestations of innocence. He has been accused of many sins 8212; notably a self-assurance that some interpret as arrogance 8212; but never of impropriety. As a newly-elected MP he was hand-picked by the then prime minister for the textiles ministry. Chidambaram demurred, pointing out that his family had extensive interests in that industry, which might give the Opposition the chance to embarrass the government. When he was commerce minister in the Narasimha Rao government he offered to quit as his wife had invested in the scam-tainted Fairgrowth a fact that emerged long after she wrote out a cheque. Finally, in this age and day, it is quite possible that a husband would not know all the details of his wife8217;s career.

Nalini Chidambaram has been practising since 1968 and happens to have specialised in tax laws. She was, with two riders, perfectly qualified to represent the Government of India in a dispute over interpretation of the tax codes. Yet it is those very caveats that have led to all the mudslinging. First, she was representing a department which operates under her husband. Second, she was appearing in a case where the the other side represented the textile mills 8212; in which her husband8217;s family has extensive interests. Impropriety or not, she stands condemned of poor judgment.

P. Chidambaram may not have known that his wife had been hired by the CBDT, but there is no way that Nalini Chidambaram did not know that her husband happens to be the Union finance minister! That means there are some questions which need to be answered.

Sushma Swaraj 8212; herself a lawyer by the way 8212; pointed out that, 8220;For every hearing she gets paid Rs 2 lakh to represent the CBDT.8221; The cost of justice in India is the true scandal if you ask me! Nalini Chidambaram countered: 8220;I did not charge a fee for every hearing. I received a modest consolidated fee.8221; She did not spell out how 8220;modest8221; this was. The subsequent statement that she had returned even this token payment is tacit admission that it was silly to have accepted the brief.

In other circumstances, Nalini Chidambaram8217;s earnings would be between her and her erstwhile clients in the Income Tax Department, but I hope she realises that she has now opened the door to more queries.

Asking the right questions, however, means getting some facts straight. For instance, is it true, as the AIADMK alleges, that one of the mill owners in the case is a 8220;blood brother8221; of the finance minister? We use the word 8216;brother8217; so loosely in India that it could even be a cousin up to the sixth degree! Unless proved otherwise I prefer to treat it is as a silly rumour.

Incidentally, the case itself is rather interesting even if it weren8217;t for the personalities involved. The question raised before the high court in Chennai was whether replacement of machine parts could be classified as revenue expenditure or whether it was a capital expense. This question has vexed several industries from steel to paper to textiles; in standard judicial practice, many cases were clubbed together as they dealt with the same issue though it goes down in the annals in the name of just one client. The high court8217;s judgment was delivered in April, but nobody paid attention until the AIADMK8217;s N. Jothi 8212; yet another lawyer 8212; raised the issue of nepotism. P. Chidambaram himself had been acting as counsel in the case until he became the finance minister. It is a pity the CBDT adopted the 8216;Laloo Principle8217;, the wife taking on the husband8217;s unfinished task!

I suspect the ramifications of the case would be of greater interest to many Indians since it directly affects their wallets. However, the issue is the CBDT8217;s appalling misjudgment in hiring Nalini Chidambaram and her arguably greater misjudgment in accepting the offer have muddied the waters. The CBDT has offered the finance minister a ham-handed apology, admitting it erred in not consulting him before appointing his wife as counsel. Once again, the CBDT has displayed its utter lack of perception.

The issue was not whether P. Chidambaram was kept in the loop. His honesty was never in doubt others may disagree. The issue was that of a potential conflict of interest. I wonder which genius had the brainwave of getting Nalini Chidambaram to represent the CBDT?

Don8217;t treat it as a storm in a teacup. The reaction appears overblown today because of P. Chidambaram8217;s personal integrity. Would we take charges of nepotism equally lightly had it involved one of his other, more colourful, colleagues?

Does anyone bother to find out what led the blessed Julius to deliver that epigram? He married Pompeia to forge a link with her cousin, Pompey. He divorced her as soon as he could marry off his own daughter by his first marriage to the great man, then marry for a third time himself. In other words, politics as usual.

So, many would say, is the storm over the CBDT8217;s ill-advised decision to select the finance minister8217;s wife to represent it. Personally, I believe P. Chidambaram8217;s protestations of innocence. He has been accused of many sins 8212; notably a self-assurance that some interpret as arrogance 8212; but never of impropriety. As a newly-elected MP he was hand-picked by the then prime minister for the textiles ministry. Chidambaram demurred, pointing out that his family had extensive interests in that industry, which might give the Opposition the chance to embarrass the government. When he was commerce minister in the Narasimha Rao government he offered to quit as his wife had invested in the scam-tainted Fairgrowth a fact that emerged long after she wrote out a cheque. Finally, in this age and day, it is quite possible that a husband would not know all the details of his wife8217;s career.

Nalini Chidambaram has been practising since 1968 and happens to have specialised in tax laws. She was, with two riders, perfectly qualified to represent the Government of India in a dispute over interpretation of the tax codes. Yet it is those very caveats that have led to all the mudslinging. First, she was representing a department which operates under her husband. Second, she was appearing in a case where the the other side represented the textile mills 8212; in which her husband8217;s family has extensive interests. Impropriety or not, she stands condemned of poor judgment.

P. Chidambaram may not have known that his wife had been hired by the CBDT, but there is no way that Nalini Chidambaram did not know that her husband happens to be the Union finance minister! That means there are some questions which need to be answered.

Sushma Swaraj 8212; herself a lawyer by the way 8212; pointed out that, 8220;For every hearing she gets paid Rs 2 lakh to represent the CBDT.8221; The cost of justice in India is the true scandal if you ask me! Nalini Chidambaram countered: 8220;I did not charge a fee for every hearing. I received a modest consolidated fee.8221; She did not spell out how 8220;modest8221; this was. The subsequent statement that she had returned even this token payment is tacit admission that it was silly to have accepted the brief.

In other circumstances, Nalini Chidambaram8217;s earnings would be between her and her erstwhile clients in the Income Tax Department, but I hope she realises that she has now opened the door to more queries.

Asking the right questions, however, means getting some facts straight. For instance, is it true, as the AIADMK alleges, that one of the mill owners in the case is a 8220;blood brother8221; of the finance minister? We use the word 8216;brother8217; so loosely in India that it could even be a cousin up to the sixth degree! Unless proved otherwise I prefer to treat it is as a silly rumour.

Incidentally, the case itself is rather interesting even if it weren8217;t for the personalities involved. The question raised before the high court in Chennai was whether replacement of machine parts could be classified as revenue expenditure or whether it was a capital expense. This question has vexed several industries from steel to paper to textiles; in standard judicial practice, many cases were clubbed together as they dealt with the same issue though it goes down in the annals in the name of just one client. The high court8217;s judgment was delivered in April, but nobody paid attention until the AIADMK8217;s N. Jothi 8212; yet another lawyer 8212; raised the issue of nepotism. P. Chidambaram himself had been acting as counsel in the case until he became the finance minister. It is a pity the CBDT adopted the 8216;Laloo Principle8217;, the wife taking on the husband8217;s unfinished task!

I suspect the ramifications of the case would be of greater interest to many Indians since it directly affects their wallets. However, the issue is the CBDT8217;s appalling misjudgment in hiring Nalini Chidambaram and her arguably greater misjudgment in accepting the offer have muddied the waters. The CBDT has offered the finance minister a ham-handed apology, admitting it erred in not consulting him before appointing his wife as counsel. Once again, the CBDT has displayed its utter lack of perception.

The issue was not whether P. Chidambaram was kept in the loop. His honesty was never in doubt others may disagree. The issue was that of a potential conflict of interest. I wonder which genius had the brainwave of getting Nalini Chidambaram to represent the CBDT?

Don8217;t treat it as a storm in a teacup. The reaction appears overblown today because of P. Chidambaram8217;s personal integrity. Would we take charges of nepotism equally lightly had it involved one of his other, more colourful, colleagues?