Ministerial panel tasked with speeding up probe into scams during BJP rule to meet this week
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on Wednesday said the committee of Ministers -- formed to review and coordinate regarding the action to be taken in connection with probe by government and investigating agencies into various scams that have taken place during the previous BJP government -- is likely to meet this week.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Tuesday constituted the five member panel headed by Parameshwara, and asked it to complete the task in two months.
The move is said to be aimed at turning the tables on the BJP, which has been targeting the ruling Congress over scams.
"Every case that is pending at various stages... some of them that have been decided and some yet to be decided...to review all of them and to submit a report a Cabinet subcommittee has been formed. Probably this week itself I will call a meeting of the committee," Parameshwara said.
Speaking to reporters here, he said such cases have been identified and their status report will be submitted to the Cabinet.
"We will not go on an individual basis, the number of cases that are pending, we will review. Cases should not catch the dust without action, so we will review them. We were doing it departmentally earlier, now it has been decided at the Cabinet level, so the committee has been formed, it is also to speed up the process," he added.
Parameshwara on Tuesday said during the BJP rule 20-25 scams have taken place, and all of them will be reviewed.
Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil, Revenue Minister Krishna Byre Gowda, Rural Development Minister Priyank Kharge and Labour Minister Santosh Lad are the members of the committee.
On the BJP dubbing the move as "vendetta politics," the Home Minister said: "Let them say whatever they want, we will have to do our duty."
"As the ruling party we will have more responsibility. They (opposition) have the responsibility to criticise, advise and correct the government if it is going in the wrong direction. As the party in government we have our own responsibility and we are answerable to the people," he added.
As for the Enforcement Directorate in its charge sheet stating that an estimated Rs 20.19 crore of the funds misappropriated from the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd (KMVSTDCL) was diverted to Ballari during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in May, Parameshwara said the probe agency would have come to the conclusion based on the evidences that it has gathered.
On the Congress government maintaining so far that former Minister B Nagendra, who has been named as the prime accused in the ED chargesheet, had no role in the scam, he said: "what we say is not important....we would have said on the prima facie basis, but the detailed probe would bring the truth out. Now the ED has said about his role in the chargesheet, let's see what happens finally."
Asked about "differences" in the findings by ED and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe ordered by the state government, the Minister said: "such things happen several times, the evidence that both agencies got might be different. Different agencies will have different mandates....ultimately both will be considered."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Beant Singh assassination convict Rajoana's mercy plea sensitive matter: Centre to SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that there was sensitivity involved in the matter related to the mercy petition of death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana, convicted in the 1995 assassination case of then Punjab chief minister Beant Singh.
A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai was hearing Rajoana's plea seeking directions to commute his death sentence to life term due to the "inordinate delay" in deciding his mercy petition.
"There is a sensitivity involved. Some agencies will have to be consulted," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench, also comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, who also appeared in the matter, said the issue was being reviewed by the government.
He said since the issue was sensitive, some more inputs were required in the matter.
The bench said it would hear the plea after four weeks.
While hearing the petition on November 18, the apex court had put on hold its order asking President Droupadi Murmu's secretary to place before her the mercy petition of Rajoana for consideration.
After the order was passed in the morning on November 18, the solicitor general had urged the bench that it should not be given effect as there were "sensitivities" involved in the issue.
Mehta had told the top court that the file was with the home ministry and not the President.
On September 25, the top court sought responses from the Centre, the Punjab government and the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on Rajoana's plea.
The then Punjab chief minister and 16 others were killed in a blast at the entrance of the civil secretariat in Chandigarh on August 31, 1995. A special court sentenced Rajoana to death in July 2007.
In his plea, Rajoana has sought the apex court's direction to the respondent authorities to commute his death sentence "due to inordinate delay" in its execution and in deciding the "mercy petition filed on his behalf".
The plea said consequentially, a direction be issued for his release.
On May 3 last year, the apex court refused to commute his death sentence and said the competent authority could deal with his mercy plea.
In his fresh plea, Rajoana has said he has undergone a total sentence of about 28 years and eight months, of which 17 years have been served as a death row convict.
He has said that in March 2012, a mercy petition under Article 72 of the Constitution was preferred by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee seeking clemency on his behalf.
The plea said over a year has elapsed since the top court had directed the competent authority, in due course of time, to deal with the mercy petition filed on his behalf and take further decision thereon.
It referred to an April last year order of the top court in a separate matter in which the court had directed all the states and appropriate authorities to decide the pending mercy petitions at the earliest and without any inordinate delay.
