The war of words between lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and the ruling AAP Government over the parole controversy escalated on Friday with the Delhi Government questioning how he knew about a second parole plea by former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala without the file reaching his office.

Though Jung’s office was not mentioning about any second parole plea by Chautala, it claimed the l-G had come to know about it “informally” and had mentioned it during a meeting with Delhi Home Minister Satyendra Jain on October 21. The AAP has been alleging that Jung was showing “undue interest” in Chautala getting parole and had pressured Jain in this regard.

Responding to press statement issued by the Raj Niwas pertaining to controversy over parole to Chautala, the AAP Government has said the l-G had on Wednesday merely mentioned about having rejected the parole application of Chautala on October 5, the latest press release, however admits a critical fact for the first time that in the meeting between Home Minister Satyendar Jain and the l-G on 21 October, the issue of latest parole application of Chautala was discussed.

“This makes it clear that on Wednesday and Thursday, the office of the l-G in its press release chose to be selective with facts and did not reveal this critical fact. Series of press releases issued from the office of the l-G appear to be selectively omitting crucial facts about the parole application of Chautala and the pressure exerted on the Delhi government for helping him,” said the Delhi Government in a press statement.

According to the latest press release issued by the office of the l-G, it has been now admitted that he did mention to Jain about the pending parole request of Chautala on October 21, however the question that has not been answered is how did the l-G know that another parole application had been filed by Chautala when the file had not even reached himIJ  

The lG office has also alleged that Satyendar Jain wanted withdrawal of cases registered against some leaders of his party. It is regrettable that the office of the l-G has tried to mislead by not placing entire facts about the procedure being followed since 2008.

According to the Delhi Government, a screening committee comprising principal secretary (home), principal secretary (law), joint commissioner of police (law and order) and director of prosecution has decided to withdraw these cases which are not serious in nature.