Sunday Interview: Admit that you made the draft. Don't hide behind the MHA & IB.'
G.K. Pillai, former home secretary, minces no words on former home minister
P. Chidambaram’s direct role in removing the reference to Ishrat Jahan being a Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) operative from the second affidavit filed by the home ministry under the UPA-2 government.
The 19-year-old was moving around with alleged Pakistani sharpshooters before they were killed in an alleged fake encounter by the Gujarat police and the Intelligence Bureau. In an exclusive interview to Namrata Biji Ahuja, Mr Pillai denies any political pressure even as he makes no bones about his Adani link.
You have been in a controversy after you distanced yourself from the previous UPA government’s second affidavit in court where Ishrat’s link to the LeT had been omitted. Can you share what really happened?
The draft of the revised affidavit was dictated by the then home minister, P. Chidambaram, in his office. Mr Chidambaram called for the file, the junior officers from the Intelligence Bureau and home ministry were present, and he dictated the revised draft. While the officers tried to tell him that the first draft was okay, Mr Chidambaram didn’t listen. He asked the officers to go and file it in the court.
When the officers brought the file to me, that was the first time I got to know that a revised draft existed. On enquiring, they told me that Mr Chidambaram had dictated and directed it to be filed.
I read the draft. While there was nothing illegal in it or beyond the competence of Mr Chidambaram, it varied from the first draft. I kept the file for Mr Chidambaram’s formal approval. He made some small grammatical corrections and asked for the fair copy to be shown to him. He approved the fair copy and it was filed in the high court.
It is being said that since the order went through you, the onus lies on you for clearing the file since you were the home secretary. You are being held equally responsible by Mr Chidambaram.
The onus would have been on me had Mr Chidam-baram passed an illegal order or something that was beyond his competence. However, Mr Chidambaram himself dictated the draft and there was nothing illegal in what he dictated per se. So, I simply signed the draft and put it before him.
In hindsight do you think you should have recorded your dissent?
I think I should have written in the file: “The revised draft as dictated by you and ordered to be filed in the court is submitted for your approval”. That would have made my position very clear. But Mr Chidambaram has admitted that the revised draft was dictated by him. So my position is clear. I dare him to deny that even one word from that draft was not dictated by him.
Why do you think the former minister is dragging you into it? Are you being made a scapegoat?
Mr Chidambaram is only taking advantage of a technicality — when the file was put before me, I did not record that it was a draft sent by him. And there will be many witnesses in the home ministry and the IB to corroborate my statement even though I was not present when the draft was made. I don’t know about political compulsions, I am not getting into that. All I am saying is, it was done suo motu, dictated and finalised by him.
Was there any communication from the then Prime Minister’s Office or the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council on the matter?
I am not aware of that. I have no record of it.
Fresh claims are now being made in the media about your motive in raking up this issue. Many are associating you with the Bharatiya Janata Party and Prime Minister Narendra Modi by citing your current position in Adani ports.
I am an independent director on the board of a number of companies. These include five listed companies. I am the chairman of Tata International Limited, Zuari Fertilisers & Chemicals Limited where I am an independent director; a director on Berger Paints; chairman of IvyCap, a venture capital fund sponsored by the IIT alumni; then I am not a permanent employee and work as an independent director at Data Security Council of India (under NASSCOM); and the Adani ports and SEZs where, again, I am an independent director.
What was the trigger for you to speak on the Ishrat Jahan case at this point of time?
Mr Chidambaram said that the revised draft was done in consultation with the IB and MHA. As a result, questions were being asked of me. I stated what I did in response to these questions.
Wasn’t the first interview given by you, instead of Mr Chidambaram, on the issue?
He had said it earlier, that’s why the questions were asked.
What do you think could be the next fallout of this controversy?
I don’t know. If it comes in a court of law there are enough witnesses that it was dictated in his office. I am not commenting on what was in the affidavit, that was his (minister’s) prerogative which he expressed in the note, and he is fully competent as the head of the home ministry to express his opinion because he had seen the first draft and then made a second draft.
I am only saying “Please admit that you made the draft. Don’t hide behind the home ministry and the IB.” He should say, “I did it because I felt it should be corrected”. This is perfectly valid. Like I am standing behind the first draft. I am not saying that my joint secretary or my joint director, the IB had put it. The first draft was cleared by me and I stand by it. Similarly, on the second draft, Mr Chidambaram should stand by his draft.
Do you think the Ishrat case demands a relook in view of the fresh claims from a number of officers, including R.S.V. Mani, the then under-secretary in MHA?
I am not commenting on that. The Central Bureau of Investigation has investigated and filed a chargesheet. It will be decided by a court of law.
Do you think Ishrat Jahan’s LeT connection has a bearing on the case? Will there be a need to file a supplementary report in the court?
If asked for. The alleged fake encounter is a separate issue from whether they were terrorists or not. It is for the court to decide. Both prosecution and witness have to file their submissions. The witnesses are examined and cross-examined and that process is a part of judicial proceedings.
Ishrat’s lawyer, Vrinda Grover, says that you can be made a prosecution witness in the case. What do you have to say?
It is not for me to decide. It is for the prosecution and court to decide whether they want me as a witness or not. If I get a court summons, I will go to the court and tell them what I know.
You still stand by the first affidavit? You think the input from the IB was convincing?
I think everybody in the IB still stands by the first affidavit. See, if an IB input says that somebody is a terrorist, it is to be believed till it is proved otherwise. We do not disbelieve it.
But the argument being given (by Mr Chidambaram) is that since it had no evidential value, it was omitted from the affidavit.
It is only an affidavit of the Union of India in the court; it is not a statement. But when you change the affidavit it gives a wrong and confusing signal to the court. In the first affidavit the IB input says they are terrorists, while the second affidavit does not mention it.
Did the court raise eyebrows to the fact that there was a change in the affidavit?
No, the court did not say anything. The court established a special investigation team to do an investigation and then the SIT itself was taken over by the CBI. They investigated the whole matter and filed a chargesheet.
So let the judicial process go ahead. I don’t think either of the two affidavits are any evidence material insofar as the case that is going to be tried is concerned.
What do you think will be the fallout of this controversy?
It is not for me to say. If the government wants to conduct an inquiry let it order one. It is the government’s prerogative. The case is before the court so let the court decide.
You are known for your candid views. Can you tell us whether at any stage there was any political pressure on you? Did anyone contact you from either the BJP or the Congress before or after this controversy?
There was no political pressure on me. Nobody, either from the BJP, the Congress, or any other party, contacted me.
