After more than two decades, the ghost of the Bofors scam has returned to haunt former Union Minister Madhavsinh Solanki. He has approached the Supreme Court against a recent Delhi High Court verdict allowing his prosecution for scuttling the Bofors probe by allegedly misrepresenting facts before Swiss authorities.
The Congress leader was held guilty by a trial court on July 7, 2008 of intentionally giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding punishable under Section 193 IPC with seven years’ imprisonment. As the then Foreign Minister, Solanki had handed over a memorandum to Swiss Foreign Minister René Felber at the World Economic Forum held at Davos in February 1992 that contained a specific instruction to suspend the Bofors investigation carried out in Switzerland.
The note passed by Solanki stated to the Swiss authorities that since the letters Rogatory issued by Indian courts were under challenge before the Delhi HC, “until a final decision is issued by Indian courts on that issue, no further steps should be taken in Switzerland in this matter.” This instruction, though unsigned and not bearing an official letterhead, fell foul of the trial court proceedings pending in a Delhi court.
Also, the action of the Central Government ran contrary to an order of the Supreme Court on August 27, 1991 which held that proceedings challenging the letters Rogatory will have no bearing on the pending Bofors investigation in Swiss courts.
Noting this charge against Solanki to be grave, the Delhi HC on November 11, 2014 found no ground to interfere with the July 7, 2008 verdict of the trial judge. “Prima facie, the attempt by the appellant, as a Union Cabinet Minister of the Government of India in handing over the memorandum intending to stall the processing of the letters Rogatory forwarded to the Swiss authorities was a grave matter,” the judge said while dismissing the petition.
In the SlP filed in the Supreme Court, the 86-year-old Solanki urged the apex court to consider his old age and the fact that this matter has suffered considerable delay of over two decades. He has indicated how a decision in the case was delayed by the executive and the CBI noting that the Solicitor General gave an opinion to launch prosecution on January 19, 1997 following which even the Attorney General’s opinion was sought. The top law officer advised prosecution under Section 192/193 IPC on June 8, 1998 and sanction to prosecute Solanki was issued on May 5, 1999. But the CBI approached the trial court only on April 4, 2003 on which the trial court decided in 2008. Incidentally, the HC had refused to drop proceedings on ground of delay, accusing him of causing delay.
Solanki further urged in his appeal that nothing remained in the Bofors case on account of the prosecution against all the other accused having been closed. Moreover, both the Government and Solanki had admitted that the memorandum given to his Swiss counterpart was not an official document but a legal opinion prepared by a lawyer.