Mumbai: The Maharashtra government may review its decision to reject the report on the Adarsh scam after pressure from the high command. The review of report by the Congress can also be seen as an attempt to salvage a losing perception battle on corruption.
The review is likely to come by Thursday when the state Cabinet will meet and the ally NCP stating it has no objection to review and even with a reversal of the decision. The ball is now in Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan's court.
Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi had a few days ago sidelined himself from the Maharastra government's action saying, "I don't agree with the decision on Adarsh. I think the Maharashtra government should reconsider its decision on Adarsh report. There is no question of protecting anyone in the scam."
Congress President Sonia Gandhi also took a tough stand against corruption and said, "The discussion during the meeting centred around how the chief minister's could take action to fight corruption."
With the NCP ready for the review of the report, party spokesperson Nawab Mallik said, "We are ready. We have no objections. We said it earlier also."
The Cabinet is likely to form a committee or a task force to study and recommend action.
This could also spell trouble for former chief minister Ashok Chavan, the sole Marathwada face of the Congress who was hoping for a come back to the political centrestage after the Governor declined sanction to the CBI to prosecute him. Ashok Chavan is one of the 13 chargesheeted in the case.
The Commission's report stated that there was certainly a nexus between the acts of Ashok Chavan and the benefit derived by his close relatives in the form of membership of the society. The membership process clearly indicated that grant of requisite permission by Chavan was by way of quid pro quo.
While the Commission's findings also stated former chief ministers Sushil Kumar Shinde, Vilasrao Deshmukh and Shivajirao Nilangekar as having given patronage to Adarsh, many in the party pointed out that the report doesn't have any evidence of the three being the direct beneficiaries and therefore any action against them is ruled out.
Comments
0 comment