 | « Back to article | Print this article |
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday defended the governor’s sanction for prosecuting Congress leader Ashok Chavan in Adarsh scam case, stating the step was taken as per the advice of the state’s top law officer and rejected the ‘vendetta’ charge.
Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao on Thursday gave sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to prosecute former chief minister Ashok Chavan in the case, days after the Bharatiya Janata Party-led state government recommended action against the leader, who is also a Lok Sabha MP.
Fadnavis said the opinion of advocate general was sought on the sanction and the law officer clearly said ‘such permission should be and could be granted.’
“The CBI said after the last governor rejected permission to prosecute Ashok Chavan, a new set of facts was discovered which clearly proved quid pro quo, that is, he gave permissions (for construction of Adarsh building) and his close relatives got flats (in the housing society). Thus, the CBI once again asked the governor to permit it to prosecute Chavan,” Fadnavis said.
He said the governor had forwarded the CBI’s request to the Council of Ministers for aid and advice, which was in turn sent to the advocate general.
"The Council of Ministers, thus, decided to recommend the governor to act in accordance with the opinion of AG and the governor in turn gave his consent to the CBI to prosecute (Chavan). Hence, there is no question of political vendetta (as alleged by Chavan)," he said.
Fadnavis sought to know why would the governor or the government refuse sanction to proceed against the Lok Sabha MP from Nanded (who is also president of Maharashtra Congress), when the central agency has stated that it had evidence of his involvement in the case.
“Even when the earlier Governor rejected permission and the CBI went to the high court, stating they don’t want to file a chargesheet since Governor had denied sanction, the court did not accept its plea and directed it to file a chargesheet,” Fadnavis said.
The erstwhile Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government had also accepted the Adarsh Commission report which ‘clearly stated that Ashok Chavan is guilty’. They only protected him in action taken report, saying the CBI is already investigating so the government does not need to take action, he added.
Fadnavis said the governor had forwarded the CBI’s request to the Council of Ministers for aid and advice, which was in turn sent to the advocate general for his views.
“The council of ministers thus decided to recommend the governor to act in accordance with the opinion of the AG and the governor in turn gave his consent to the CBI to prosecute. Now where does the question of political vendetta arise from?” he questioned.
Fadnavis sought to know as to how could the governor or the state government refuse sanction against Chavan when the CBI stated that it had evidence of quid pro quo.
“Even while the earlier Governor rejected permission and the CBI went to the high court stating they don’t want to file a charge sheet since governor has rejected, the Court did not accept the CBI’s plea and directed it to file a chargesheet,” he said.
Chavan, however, said, “The grant of sanction for prosecution and the CBI’s decision to move the application in the first place is on the insistence and pressure from the BJP.”
“Is BJP MP Kirit Somaiya a part of the government that it endorses his application and the entire process starts? You can see the political interference of the BJP functionaries in the whole process. Why was this issue raked up for the second time? Because of BJP functionaries and their political vendetta behind the issue,” he said.
Somaiya had reportedly approached the state government in 2015, alleging that the CBI was deliberately ignoring adverse strictures made by a two-member judicial commission against Chavan. He had also written to the CBI, asking it to reconsider its position.
Chavan also sought to know how could the opinion of a new governor change with a new government in power in the state.
“Once the governor has taken a conscious stand after consulting the highest legal authority in the country, and then issued orders saying he cannot sanction prosecution, if the governor changes and the government changes, does it mean that the opinion also changes?” he questioned.