ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Kesri's FCRA case handed to CBI, HC told

The Rs 37.5 million Foreign Contribution Regulation Act violation case against former Congress presidents Sitaram Kesri and P V Narasimha Rao and the Congress party has been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Delhi High court was informed today.

Central government standing counsel A K Vali told a division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Mahinder Narain and Justice Mukul Mudgal that the probe into the 1994 case has been handed over to the CBI, which is to ascertain who owns the four foreign companies that was allegedly involved in the FCRA violation.

The four companies -- Deirra, Dominian, Decor Corporations and Berklays Bank -- had made the contributions between 1993-1994 when Kesri was the party treasurer and Rao was the party president.

The submission came during hearing on a public interest petition filed by Patna-based journalist Madhuresh Kumar seeking initiation of legal proceedings against Kesri, Rao and the Congress for receiving the payments in violation of laws which state that no party should receive any aid from a foreign company.

The bench directed the petitioner, the central government, the CBI, Kesri and Rao to address submission on August 24 to establish whether the money received was from foreign sources.

The court had asked Vali to take directions from the attorney general on the view of three former Chief Justices of India that the money was not from a foreign source and thus did not violate FCRA.

However, Vali said this was not required as the advice of a additional solicitor general had been taken and he had expressed his agreement with the views of the former CJIs.

The petitioner's counsel, Prashant Bhushan, contended that the opinions of former chief justices of India Justice P N Bhagwati, Justice A M Ahmadi and Justice Y B Chandrachud were based on section 591 of the FCRA, which stated that a foreign company lacking an office in India would not be treated as a foreign company under FCRA.

Since the four companies had no offices anywhere in India, the contributions made by them would not attract FCRA provisions, the former judges felt, adding that the money thus gathered should not be treated as from a foreign source.

But the fact was that if the money was received from a private company based abroad, then there was a clear offence under FCRA, Bhushan argued.

According to the petitioner, the four companies had, during one period, made payments to the Congress through its president and treasurer, in violation of FCRA provisions.

The petition named Kesri as the first respondent since he, being the party treasurer, was responsible for managing party's financial matters and maintaining their records.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report