UPA govt trying to interfere in investigations against RIL gas price scam
The opinion by a central government’s law officer (Solicitor General) reported in the media is shocking and clearly establishes collusion between the petroleum ministry and the Reliance Industries Limited, which is aimed at providing this company an unjustified gain of Rs 54,500 crore every year.
The Solicitor General (SG) appears to be trying to create an erroneous impression that even if any central minister allegedly commits a crime in Delhi, then no action can be taken against such a minister.
The timing of the SG’s opinion is questionable and raises suspicion that the UPA government, which is about to demit office in a month’s time is using its law officers to avoid facing the law, once it is out of power.
What was least expected from a law officer was to have taken into account the fact that the Election Commission has deferred the central government’s decision to double the prices of natural gas from April 1.
Why has the opinion been rendered nearly two months after the FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption wing ?
What is surprising is that the SG has used the language quite similar to that of the BJP leadership in raising a false and unjustified bogey of federalism in their combined attempt to bail out the RIL and support the petroleum ministry’s move to double the prices of natural gas.
The clear proof of Congress-led UPA and the BJP are together in bailing out the RIL was their decision to vote together in the Delhi assembly on February 14 to defeat the AAP government’s Janlokpal bill. This took place merely three days after the Arvind Kejriwal government had directed the Anti-Corruption Wing to register an FIR against the RIL and petroleum minister M Veerappa Moily, among others.
Why are the Congress and the BJP, both, shying away from revealing the amount of funds they have received for the Lok Sabha elections ? Can these parties declare that they have not received any funds from the RIL ?
The SG’s opinion raises serious questions about professional ethics also. He is the same law officer, who on April 3 tried to defend the centre’s decision to double the prices of natural gas before the Supreme Court.
Is it justified for a law officer who has been consistently taking a pro-RIL stance in his opinions/submissions to comment on the alleged criminality of the same company, which hobnobbed with the UPA government to impose a huge financial hike on the people ? more