While Finance Minister P Chidambaram and his wife Nalini kept a stony silence on the accusation against the latter in the explosive revelation made by tainted chit fund owner Sudipta Ghosh, the Trinamool Congress on Thursday seized the opportunity to target the duo.
lambasting certain media houses and the Congress for only highlighting the alleged role of their MPs — Kunal Ghosh and Srinjoy Ghosh — in the Bengal chit fund scam, TMC said either Chidambaram or Nalini should clarify Nalini’s deals with Saradha Group’s CMD Sudipta Sen. Reminding that ‘Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion’, TMC posed five questions to Chidambaram and his wife to answer.
“Page 10 of Sudipta Sen’s letter to the CBI has thrown up piquant and important questions in relation to the role of a lady lawyer from Chennai, the wife of a senior Congress Minister, in the goings-on of the Saradha Group and its bucket-shop operations. These questions need to be clarified by the lady and/or her husband:
Q1. Senior Advocates are usually barred from meeting clients directly. Why did the lady lawyer make an exception in the case of Sudipta SenIJ Who was the solicitorIJ Why were conventions of the legal profession ignored in this `special` matterIJ
Q2. One Congress Minister`s lawyer-wife draws up an agreement to get `42 crore in capital for a former Congress Minister’s wife for a dubious business project. What was the lady lawyer’s interest in the ventureIJ Why was she soliciting capital and investment from Sudipta Sen, almost in the manner of an investment bankerIJ
Q3. The proposed business venture ‘a television channel’ and its promoter both belonged to the North-East. So many good, senior lawyers are available in New Delhi and Guwahati. Why did the promoter go to a lawyer in faraway Chennai to draft the agreement and act as consultantIJ Was there a hint of political coercion and protection moneyIJ
Q4. The lady lawyer, wife of a powerful Minister, allegedly charged `1 crore to draft an
agreement, while other lawyers could have done it for a much smaller sum. Why was she paid such a generous feeIJ What was the quid pro quoIJ
Q5. Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. This rule applies for the Trinamool in Kolkata. “Does it apply for the Congress in New Delhi and Chennai,” asked TMC in a statement from Kolkata.
TMC pointed out that the Congress Minister AH Khan Chowdhury wrote to the Prime Minister last year in which he withdrew an earlier complaint that sought investigation into Saradha’s chit fund. Chowdhury wrote that when he had asked for an inquiry against Saradha in 2011, he was misinformed that Sen’s father was an infamous chit-fund owner who had duped thousands of people and committed suicide. The minister praised Saradha Realty for conducting “a prosperous and successful” business and said it had no links to a chit fund. Chowdhury on his part accused the TMC of “using the Congress to cover up their fault”.
The TMC, however, hit back saying the Congress must probe why its MP did a U-turn within six months. Demanding Chowdhury’s resignation, TMC MP Derek O’Brien said, “In September 2011, Chowdhury wrote a letter demanding strict action against Saradha group. Within six months, he does a U-turn and says the company be spared. The Congress has to give serious answers why its minister did this U-turn.”
Chowdhury defended himself saying: “In my previous note (a letter dated September 2011 in which he demands action against Saradha group) I had made some errors. It was a mistaken identity and I would be sued, so I had to change my opinion... I mistook Sudipta to be someone else... I met Sudipta only six months after my second letter,” he said.
In the 18-page letter to CBI, Sen alleged he was forced by Nalini to invest in a new television project in North-East worth Rs.42 crore. According to him, TV baroness Manoranjana Sinh, wife of former Congress Minister Matang Sinh took him to Nalini’s office in Chennai. When contacted, Nalini on Wednesday refused to speak to The Pioneer about her relationship with Sen.
The copy of the letter available with The Pioneer shows that Cabinet Minister’s wife was paid Rs 1 crore by Sen for preparing the agreement related to the takeover of a channel in North-East.
“Madam Chidambaram requested me to help her for setting up a channel in North-East in Guwahati and support her by extending Rs 42 crores to her company,” Sen writes adding Nalini herself prepared the agreement.
“Without assessing my financial strength she also pressurised me to support her with Rs 42 crores. So far I remember that I have already paid Rs 25 crore to Mrs Manoranjana Sinh in the name of the Company GNN India Pvt.ltd,” said Sen.
Meanwhile BJP’s deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha Ravi Shankar Prasad said the role of a Tamil Nadu-based advocate, who is connected to Finance Minister, has come into focus and a proper probe must be held to reveal the level of her involvement in the scam.
The Congress defended Nalini Chidambaram on the ground that as a lawyer she had accepted the professional fee for advice/service rendered. Congress spokesperson Renuka Chowdhury said that lawyers are entitled to get their fees for advice rendered.