"I only did my duty and he has become a mortal enemy"

ii) Dr Subramanian Swamy’s accusation against Ms Jayalalitha in respect of her conduct and behaviour stands falsified in face of the Collector’s tour diary (Exhibit 95), and Dr Swamy’s own stand not to examine the Dharmapuri Collector Mr Murguan and Shri K. Ramamurthy…..

iii) Why Dr Swamy wanted to avoid filing affidavit is better known to him but it appears that he did not intend to comply with the directions of the Commission that the replies have to be filed in the form of an affidavit as they relate to facts which are in his exclusive knowledge. How a public person should act in such a manner in such an important public enquiry?

iv) It appears that Dr Swamy wanted to avoid filing of affidavits either considering that the information is not true and the same may not be sworn. If the information were true and theCommission was demanding, there was no reason for Dr Subramanian Swamy not to have filed the affidavits in response to the Commission’s questionnaires and reminders…..

v) The conduct of Dr Subramanian Swamy completely shows that he does not want to assist and cooperate with the Commission in unraveling the truth which he professed to do…….

vi) It would appear that the witness has been changing his statements in consequence of questions put to him. At one stage he states that the information was received through an intermediary from the informant; earlier he stated that his informer gave him the information. In the next breath, he introduces an intermediary and when the question of mode is put to him, he excludes fax and letter and then again reiterates that the information was received by him through an intermediary and orally.

Such is the state of deposition of the witness; what information was given by which particular informant or intermediary, even this much he does not recall.

vii) Readingthe statement of Dr Subramanian Swamy, in this regard, as a whole about receiving of information by him through informants or through intermediaries anywhere, does not inspire confidence at all and has further been rendered incredible when he does not disclose the names of the informants or the names of the intermediaries and the prevaricates on the mode of communication.

viii) Dr Subramanian Swamy therefore cannot be believed when he changes his versions and when he is indefinite and more particularly when he does not support his version by any corroboratory evidence. He has adopted an attitude not to disclose the information on various aspects when questions were put to him.

ix) In the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, the accusation made against Ms Jayalalitha regarding her fore-knowledge in respect of targeting Shri Rajiv Gandhi for his elimination cannot be believed and, in my opinion, Dr Swamy has failed to establish this accusation against Jayalalitha even prima facie.

x) I havealready mentioned above that the witness came out with three versions in connection with his statement that he has friends who have penetrated into the LTTE and he denied the statement having been made by him.

xi) When questioned as to how he is getting information, for a price or for love of it, he said that he is not prepared to answer.

xii) The witness was shown his statement appearing in the The Hindu dated 7.3.1995 (exhibit 257) wherein he stated that Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao would not be able to survive without his help. He admitted that it was a propaganda statement. It was a stunt and not a genuine claim.

xiii) It is also true that Dr Subramanian Swamy refused to answer questions as has been considered above. In such a situation, Section 179, IPC can be attracted in view of the applicability of sub-section 4 of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act as the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act makes the provisions of sub-sections 2,3,4 and 5 applicable so far as the inquiry by thisCommission is concerned and it can also be said that Dr Subramanian Swamy has prevaricated and has changed his version with regard to his statement that his friends have penetrated into the LTTE. He can be proceeded against for the offense under Section 193. IPC.

xiv) Dr Subramanian Swamy has made uncalled for an unwarranted remarks against him (Jethmalani). Even in the written submissions submitted by Dr Subramanian Swamy after the end of the deposition, he has levelled false and unwarranted remarks. All have to be expunged and he should have been protected from such a conduct of the witness which was highly reprehensible and condemnable in respect of which not only he but other members of the Bar present during the proceedings had also strongly protested. It is true that it was highly improper and unjustified on the part of Dr Subramanian Swamy to pass any remarks against Counsel Shri Jethmalani appearing on behalf of Ms Jayalalitha. I had been taking strong exception to such remarks and had been warningand directing Dr Subramanian Swamy to keep restraint and maintain the majesty and dignity of the proceedings. For a certain remark by Dr Swamy in relation to Shri Jethmalani, everyone including the Commission felt hurt and Dr Subramanian Swamy on that occasion apologised during the proceedings. However, he failed to observe that restraint and made unwarranted remarks in his written submissions which he should not have done. All remarks against Shri Jethmalani shall stand expunged."

I only did my duty as a Senior Counsel and Dr Swamy has become a mortal enemy. Time and again, during the cross-examination, he lost his balance. In the end of his arguments instead of attacking Jayalalitha he attacked me personally and told the Commission in writing: "According to my information Mr Jethmalani has been receiving money from the LTTE and deposited the same in his son’s account in the Citi Bank in New York." I do not allow scurrilous allegations of this kind to go un-noticed. I immediately filed a suit in the DelhiHigh Court being suit No.2724 of 1995 claiming damages of Rs 50 lakhs. Dr Swamy will have another test of my cross examination.

Incidentally, an allegation of this kind was made by his friend Chandraswami too five years ago. I prosecuted him the Magistrate’s Court in Bombay for the offense of defamation. There were protracted hearings of the case and when Chandraswami found himself in hot waters and was unable to sustain the falsehood, he tendered an apology and persuaded me to withdraw the case against him. Chandraswami was assisted by Dr Swamy. The latter used to attend the Magistrate Court’s hearings on a number of occasions to show his support and solidarity with his friend.

At their instance, the allegation was conveyed to the ED. In July last year ED made inquiries from me and I presume the Directorate was satisfied and the case was closed. However, I have not been officially informed and, this is only my inference from their long silence.

Now that Dr Swamy could not become a Minister in spite ofhis Harvard qualifications and I have become one, he is at his old game again. He repeated the same stale allegation of 11 years ago knowing that the matter is sub-judice in the Delhi High Court. I filed against him another suit for damages for the false libel uttered. This is suit number 617 of 1998 of the High Court of Delhi. Instead of holding press conferences and deflecting public servants from performing their ministerial duties Dr Swamy should join me in requesting the High Court for expeditious disposal of these two suits. But the moral leper that he is, I expect no such courage or rectitude from him.

(CONCLUDED)