Opinion Write back

I am currently travelling overseas. I had the opportunity to read Mr Kapil Sibal’s account (Idea Exchange,October 13) of his discussion with Ms Sushma Swaraj and me in order to conclude that we were being economical with the truth. While my recollection of events does not match his,I just wish to place on record these facts,which disprove his charges.

On August 15,Mr Sibal,Mr Chidambaram and I,while walking away from the Red Fort after the prime minister’s speech,discussed the subject. I expressed my unease at Mr Sibal’s proposal to amend the Constitution to enable a convicted person to be a lawmaker. Mr Sibal stated that he would look at a simple legislation rather [than amending the Constitution.

Advertisement

Much later,he met Ms Sushma Swaraj and me in Ms Swaraj’s chamber with a copy of an amendment to the Representation of People Act. Armed with a copy of the Supreme Court judgment,I argued with him that the amendment suffered from the same unconstitutionality as the original provision. Mr Sibal and I disagreed.

On September 7,the government ministers told us that this amendment would not be taken up in the House in view of our opposition and would be referred to the standing committee. What happened on September 22 was procedural.

Was Mr Sibal still under the impression that we were supporting this bill? Is this a case of being economical with the truth or selective amnesia?

Arun Jaitley (Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha).