Volcker report: BJP calls for CBI probe against Natwar

Making it clear that the opposition would not be satisfied with the government’s proposed enquiry, Jaitley said a full-fledged criminal case must be registered against those named in the Volcker Committee for violating not just the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) but also the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Jaitley cited two reasons for his demand that ‘‘an appropriate investigative agency’’ carry out the probe. First, when the NDA government had appointed the Justice Phukan Commission to probe the Tehelka tapes,the Congress leadership had insisted that a criminal case should be registered and investigated.

‘‘How can the Prime Minister, Mrs Sonia Gandhi and the UPA government now adopt different standards? They should be bound by the same yardstick by which they insisted that when facts constitute a criminal offence it is the CBI alone which should investigate after registration of a criminal case.’’ The second, and more substantive reason, was that the bulk of evidence in the present case was available only outside the country and ‘‘neither a retired diplomat nor a retired judge under the Commission of Enquiry Act would be empowered to take coercive procedure to collect evidence,’’ Jaitley said.

In order to gather evidence scattered across Iraq, Jordan, Switzerland (where Masefield AG is based) and New York (UN HQ), Letters of Request under Section 166A of the CrPC would have to be issued ‘‘by the investigative agencies and appropriate courts in India to the appropriate courts/ agencies in those foreign countries.’’

But an enquiry by a retired judge or civil servant ‘‘would be rendered futile in view of their inability to collect the evidence’’ Jaitley said, adding that, ‘‘Such an enquiry would be only a cover up and a convenient explanation for a Government to contend that persons/ companies/ institutions outside India are not cooperating.’’

Jaitley also said the FEMA was a ‘‘diluted’’ and ‘‘benign’’ version of the earlier FERA, and it was not enough to launch a case only under this act. When offences had been committed under the stricter FCRA (which decrees no political party can accept foreign funds and no individual can accept foreign funds on behalf of a political party either) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, ‘‘don’t go in for the most benign of the three.’’