HT This Day: March 20, 1975 -- Deposition concludes as PM ‘not aware’ AICC announced her candidature
Indira Gandhi was cross-examined on the role played by Yashpal Kapoor who was a government servant till she filed her nomination and appointed him her election agent, and on the date on which her candidature was announced
Allahabad: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi today concluded giving evidence in the election petition before the Allahabad High Court maintaining that Mr Yashpal Kapoor had not canvassed her election from Rae Bareli before February 1, 1971, and that she was not aware of the AII-India Congress Committee (AICC) announcing, even tentatively, her candidature before that date.
Mrs Gandhi was cross-examined today on the role played by Mr Kapoor who was a government servant till she filed her nomination and appointed him her election agent, and on the date on which her candidature was announced. She was also questioned on Maruti Ltd. She signed the 54- page transcript of her evidence this afternoon: It runs into nearly 15,000 words.
The Prime Minister was in the witness box for 90 minutes this morning and, in all, her evidence lasted exactly six and a half hours. Before the proceedings began this morning, Mr Raj Narain’s counsel, Mr Shanti Bhushan, told the court that his cross-examination of Mrs Gandhi would conclude well before lunch and it was over at 11-30 a.m.
Mrs Gandhi was calm all through the cross-examination and her answers to questions were unhurried. Her son Rajiv Gandhi and his wife Sonia Gandhi were present in the court both yesterday and today while her testimony was on.
The Prime Minister deposed that she had no knowledge of the All-India Congress Committee announcing her candidature on January 29, 1971. Even if it was true, it was of “no importance” because the final decision about her constituency had been left to her by the party.
Mr Shanti Bhushan then drew her attention to the “additional statements” in which it is stated that the AICC had arrived at its final decision about her constituency on that date. After reading it, she said she could not recollect if it was so. Asked if she had not checked the “additional statements,” she said she had done so to ensure that it was true to the best of her knowledge. “But this legal language I find it difficult to understand.”
The secretary of the AICC Mr K. N. Joshi. had also not made any announcement about her candidature on January 29, she said.
Mrs Gandhi said the Congress Party had left it to her to choose her constituency and once she had taken the decision, it had become the party’s decision.
During her 90-minute cross-examination, the Prime Minister said Mr Gulzarilal Nanda, who had taken Mr Yashpal Kapoor to Rae Bareli in January 1971, had not given her any reasons for doing so. so. Mr Kapoor also did not tell her the reasons, she said.
Any other Minister, she said, might have taken Mr Kapoor to some other districts, but she did not know about it. She had seen him next at Rae Bareli on February 1, 1971.
Mr Shanti Bhushan then asked: Mr Yashpal Kapoor has stated that between January 21 and 26 he must have met you twice?
Mrs Gandhi replied: It may be correct. But as I meet a large number of people, I do not recollect. I may have had some talk with him between January 13 and February 1, 1971. but I have no recollection of it.”
PTI adds: Mrs Gandhi was shown passages in her written statement and additional written statement and asked whether after reading them she could recall it she met Mr Kapoor more than once about questions raised in the election petition.
Mrs Gandhi said: “It is still difficult for me to recollect whether I met and talked to Mr Kapoor on the subject once or more than once.”
Mrs Gandhi was then questioned on the interrogatories served upon her and her replies to them. Her attention in particular was drawn to the question whether the AICC had decided her candidature without having her approval.
Reminding her of the reply then that the decision of the AICC was ‘a tentative one,” counsel asked: “Do you now agree there was a decision by the AICC, even though it was tentative?”
After perusing the reply by Mr Jagpat Dubey “acting on her behalf,’ Mrs Gandhi said: “I do not know or remember...... I have no knowledge that the AICC took even a tentative decision about my constituency. Since the final decision was left to me it was of no importance.”
Replying to another question, she also stated that she did not remember whether she gave any separate instructions to Mr Jagpat Dubey to give replies on her behalf to the interrogatories served on her.
Counsel reminded Mrs Gandhi of her statement yesterday that she had asked Mr Yashpal Kapoor when he expressed his desire to resign in 1971 to go and meet her secretary. Did she advise Mr Kapoor in similar fashion when he offered to resign on the eve of the 1987 election?
“I have no idea,” replied Mrs Gandhi. “In 1967, Mr Kapoor as private secretary, was a permanent Government employee, but during 1971 when he was Officer on Special Duty, he was a temporary employee.”
Then followed a Spate of questions on Maruti, most of which were disallowed by Mr Justice Sinha as irrelevant.
When counsel asked Mrs Gandhi about the letter of intent issued to her son to manufacture the small car and whether she allowed her position as Prime Minister to be used in that connection, the judge recorded the question and ruled: “The question is not at all connected with any of the matters under issue in the case and accordingly is disallowed.”
Same ruling
The same ruling from the bench followed when Mr Shanti Bhushan asked Mrs Gandhi whether she had publicly defended the grant of the letter of intent to Mr Sanjay Gandhi.
Mrs Gandhi replied in the affirmative to a question whether Mr Sanjay Gandhi was living with her when he applied for the letter of intent. Was Mr Sanjay Gandhi a member of a joint family with her? “I don’t think,” she replied “In fact. I don’t know what is meant by joint family.”
“No”, replied Mrs Gandhi to another question whether Mr Sanjay Gandhi had been in business before he applied for the letter of intent for the Maruti project.
Counsel: Was he (Mr Sanjay Gandhi) employed anywhere before starting the Maruti project?
Judge: The question is not at all relevant and is disallowed.
The court repeated the order when counsel persisted in asking about Mr Sanjay Gandhi’s income before starting Maruti and whether he had been paying income tax.
Was Mr Sanjay Gandhi a graduate in engineering when he applied for the letter of intent?
Mrs Gandhi: No.
At one stage, Mr Justice Sinha reminded Mr Raj Narain’s counsel that the petition related to the election of Mrs Gandhi and not to Mr Sanjay Gandhi and observed. “The question is not at all*understandable or relevant.”
Replying to one of the questions allowed Mrs Gandhi denied that the letter of intent to Mr Sanjay Gandhi was considered by a subcommittee presided by herself. She added, replying to a query from the bench, that the Ministry of Industry was the competent authority to grant a letter of intent.
She was asked whether there was an earlier Government decision that if the production of a small car was ever undertaken, it would be in the public sector.
“There was such a discussion but no final decision,” she said.
The judge interrupted counsel to ask what specifically he was attempting to get from the witness.
Mr Shanti Bhushan explained that his case was that the earlier decision to have a small car manufactured in the public sector was given up “because Mr Sanjay Gandhi got interested in the small car.”
Mrs Gandhi: If the Government wishes to go ahead with manufacturing a small car in the public sector, the Maruti project will not prevent the Government from doing so.
Explaining the background, she said that at the relevant time no person came forward with any design for indigenous production of a small car. There was a proposal later in the Ministry of Industry that if anybody so came forward the case might be considered. The Government was of the opinion it would be in the interest of the country to have a small car manufactured within the country.
Letters of intent
At present, small cars were being manufactured by some small private entrepreneurs, she noted When the letter of intent was issued to Maruti Limited, “letters of intent were issued to other parties as well.”
To another question, Mrs Gandhi replied that Maruti Limited did not contemplate producing the same pattern of cars as were available in the country today.
Mrs Gandhi noted that there was a proposal for quite some time to have a car in the public sector. She was asked if there was a statement in Parliament in 1970 that the Government had decided in principle to create an additional capacity of 50,000 cars per annum in the public sector based on proven foreign design. “There might have been such a statement.” she replied.
The court disallowed questions by Mr Raj Narain’s counsel pertaining to the application by Mr Sanjay Gandhi for a licence for setting up a small car project and the granting of a letter of intent by the Government.
The presiding judge recorded the questions but observed that they were not relevant for the purpose of the case before the court.
Counsel then put a question on the acquisition of land in Gurgaon district for Maruti Limited by the Haryana Government and asked whether Mrs Gandhi was aware of objections raised by the IAF on the ground of security of an explosives depot there.
Mrs Gandhi explained that the land was acquired by the Haryana Government for industrial purposes and many constructions had come into existence near the explosives depot. “Some objection was raised in this connection but I am not sure whether it was raised by the IAF or some parliamentarians.”
Counsel then asked: “Was a demand made for an inquiry under the Commission of inquiry Act to go into charges against Mr Bansi Lal (the Chief Minister of Haryana) through a memorandum signed by 101 MPs?”
The question was recorded but disallowed by the court.
Counsel: Did not the memorandum include a charge that the Chief Minister had acted highhandedly in the matter of acquisition of land?
Mrs Gandhi replied that each item in the memorandum was gone into carefully and found devoid of substance.
Both Houses of Parliament were also given replies to the charges. As no substance was found, the demand for an inquiry was turned down.
The court disallowed a question whether Mrs Gandhi was aware of shares held by Mr Sanjay Gandhi, Mrs Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister’s grand children in Maruti Technical Services Private Limited.
Counsel then asked whether Mrs Sonia Gandhi was living with Mrs Indira Gandhi and whether the Prime Minister’s house could be used “for the purpose of carrying on business.”
Mrs Gandhi confirmed that Mrs Sonia Gandhi was living with her. She said the Prime Minister’s house as such could not be used for the purpose of carrying on business.
Asked whether Mrs Sonia Gandhi was carrying on business as an insurance agent, Mrs Gandhi replied that “for a brief while” she was an insurance agent. She was living at the Prime Minister’s house at that time.
She explained that the insurance business was related to Maruti Limited which had a separate office.
Counsel again asked several questions today relating to work done by Mr Yashpal Kapoor. One of the questions was. “Is it correct that during the period 1967 to 1971 Mr Kapoor was doing political work, particularly in Rae Bareli?”
Mrs Gandhi said she had already explained yesterday that it was difficult to distinguish between “what is political and what is not. If representations were received from Rae Bareli as well as other places, it was his job to go into them and see what could be done.”
Mrs Gandhi described as “absolutely untrue ‘ suggestion that on Jan. 11, 1967 she herself asked Mr Kapoor to resign on the understanding that after the election was over, he would be reappointed.
It was also wrong to say that between 1967 and Ital Mr Kapoor nursed her constituency. But he did look into certain representations that came during the period, she said.
In reply to another question, she said if Mr Kapoor got himself enrolled as a voter in the Rae Bareli constituency. it was for his own purpose.
Mrs Gandhi also denied a suggestion that a permanent office was set up in Rae Bareli to nurse the constituency.
Suggestion denied
Counsel: I put it to you that Mr Gayaprasad Shukla used to look after that office.
Mrs Gandhi: I have already said that there was no such permanent office. So the question of looking after it does not arise.
She denied a suggestion that from the time of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha she had decided to contest the election from Rae Bareli.
Yesterday Mr Shanti Bhushan put a number of questions to Mrs Gandhi to elicit the information flow she could so precisely recollect Jan. 13 as the date on which Mr Yashpal Kapoor resigned.
Mrs Gandhi said she collected the information from Mr Haksar and others in her Secretariat when something was said about it in the election petition. She had also seen the gazette notification. She was told that the resignation had been put down as Jan. 14 in the “charge certificate” for accounting purposes Mr Kapoor had drawn his salary up to Jan 13 and had not attended the PM’s Secretariat subsequently.
“Had she hesitated at any time about contesting from Rae Bareli?”
She had not made up her mind until the last moment. The question of hesitation did not arise. “I can only say that in the list of constituencies that were being considered, Rae Bareli was not on the top,” she said.
Mrs Gandhi agreed that her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, had always contested from Phulpur, but she did not agree that it was the normal thing to contest always from the same constituency.
Mrs Gandhi said that special circumstances prevailed at the mid-term poll but even in normal circumstances there were many exceptions to the general rule that a person contested from the same constituency from where he had won previously.
She did think of some alternative names in case she decided against contesting from Rae Bareli, but it was all “very nebulous.”
Mrs Gandhi shook her head to indicate a “No” when Mr Shanti Bhushan asked if she would be able to recognise her voice in a tape recording.
Justice Sinha said it was not necessary to play the recording if Mrs Gandhi confirmed the transcript of her December 29, 197 Press conference.
Mrs Gandhi read the transcript, which said she was asked about a statement of Opposition leaders that she would change her constituency from Rae Bareli to Gurgaon and she had replied: “No I am not.”
“If that was the question, this would have been the answer I am accepting that I said I was not changing my constituency from Rae Bareli to Gurgaon. There was no special reason to contest from Gurgaon. I may add that normally in a Press conference we did not declare certain things. Even if I had in my mind to contest from Gurgaon, I would not declare it there (in a Press conference)”.
Mr Shanti Bhushan suggested that the question put to her involved also the changing of her constituency from Rae Bareli.
Mrs Gandhi: That was not my understanding.
Counsel for Mr Rai Narayan then showed Mrs Gandhi the issue of National Herald dated January 20 1971, and a report in it headed: “Mud-slinging campaign”, which said she described Mr Rai Narain as a Nehru-hater.
