Arvind Kejriwal’s response to the notice by the Election Commission on a complaint by the BJP Delhi

On Jan 23, 2015

SUBJECT: COMMENTS AND EXPLANATION ON THE COMPLAINT DATED15/01/2015 FILED BY SH. SATISH UPADHYAY, PRESIDENT, BHARTIYAJANTA PARTY, DELHI PRADESH

In respect of the matter referred to above the following is submitted for the Commission’s kind perusal:

It is respectfully submitted that the allegations levelled against me in the complaint are malafide and motivated. It is apparently a counter blast by the Complainant and/or his Party to distract the people by diverting attention.
I deny the allegations of the Complainant in toto. The information disseminated during the press conference was based on cogent and reliable material available in public domain and ground perception among the local public at large.
I draw the attention of this Commission to the following documents:
Copy of the press release dated 14.01.2015;
Download from the website www.mca.gov.in showing list of the companies in which Mr. Satish Upadhay is a director;
Download from /www.bsesdelhi.com/docs showing the Complainant’s company in the list of approved electricity services vendor at serial no. 97 having vendor code 232306;
Download from indiaMart.com containing proclamation of the Complainant’s company about being the blue eyed chip of BSES which is a prominent electricity services company in Delhi at loggerheads with public over fast electricity metres;
Download from election watch showing acknowledgement by the Complainant that he owns substantial interest in the company named therein;
Copy of letter no. 610 dated 09.10.2014 with copy of letter dated 25.09.2014 regarding the two TIN nos. of the same company in question;
Copy of form no. 26AS of the company in question; (dim on print)
Copy of allottees of shares in New Delhi Communication Network ltd.

Perusal of above shows up the falsehood and malafide of the allegations levelled by Sh. Satish Upadhay against me. These are self explanatory.

The press conference only raised these questions to bring the actual situation to the knowledge of the general public. The conflict of interest of the Complainant is patently obvious. The brouhaha by the Complainant is a vain attempt to save face.

I submit that the Model Code of Conduct is brought into force to ensure that the public is not misled. This includes the responsibility of every political party or its worker to disclose upfront all information in respect of issue where the same is in conflict with electorate’s collective interest. Unfortunately, this was not done by the Complainant both personally or in his capacity as the Pradesh President of his Party.

Electricity is one such domain.

The Complainant ought to have disclosed the position on his own. In fact the Complainant has failed the people of Delhi. Even his own party has not fielded him at this election. Unfortunately, till date the moot question asked from them awaits their answer i.e. The Complainant and his Party make it clear as to what will be their stand in respect of the matters when our government after the instant election would be expected to critically examine and audit the functioning of DISCOMS to insulate public interest from poaching by vested interest?

It is intriguing that Sh. Ashish Sood has not signed the complaint and nor Sh. Satish Upadhay has provided any authority from Ashish Sood authorizing Sh. Satish Upadhay to make any allegation on his behalf.

The allegation tacitly suggesting as if I have invented the information contained in these public documents and documents in public domain is untrue to the knowledge of the Complainant. I deny each and every innuendo, allegation, imputation and attribution to me therein.

It is the duty of every citizen to place in public domain any information showing such conflict. The Model Code of Conduct does not work against such information. Disclosure of such information as can show up such conflict of interest with public interest only goes to promote the Model Code regardless of anybody’s discomfort with the same.

In my view People and Public good alone matters. Any conflict of interest with Public good cannot be kept out of public eye especially when Public is in process of electing its representatives.

In fact the complaint seeks to make light of this cardinal principle as well as the Model Code which cannot be allowed. The crocodile tears of the complainant are self serving.

Further the information provided by the NCNL Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. to the Indiamart.com belies the assertions made by Shri Satish Upadhyay in his complaint including his claim that his company does not do business with BSES anymore. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as the Complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. It is pertinent to mention that I have not learnt that the Complainant has taken any action against Indiamart.com.

The essence was that a person and a Party that encourages any person to lead the election campaign seeking votes for a right to Govern, whereby such person having vested business interests with companies having billions of rupee stake annually in enterprise falling in domain of such Governance (Delhi Government has 49% partnership with BSES 51%), ought to disclose such interests to the electorate when such public offices are sought by it. I honestly believe that the Model Code of Conduct certainly does not work against such a premise.

It is now a fact that BJP now has a new campaign leader for the forthcoming elections after revelation of the above information and even the Complainant is now not given a ticket to contest the forthcoming elections. Obviously, there is no substance in the complaint. The same is liable to be dismissed.

EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO PARA 9 OF THE NOTICE

In Para 8 of the notice the Commission has expressed that it is prima facie of the view that by making the statement as mentioned in Para 6 of the complaint I have violated sub-para (1) of Para 1 of the Model Code of Conduct and have called for my explanation.

At the outset I respectfully submit that the malafide and false content, purpose and intent of the Complaint has been shown. I urge that the prima-facie view formed may be reconsidered. I hold the Model Code in highest esteem and cannot fathom to violate it. I have not violated the code at all leave alone wilfully, seriously or blatantly. The Complainant is venting his frustration. It is the Complainant who has violated the model code by wilfully, falsely and blatantly making frivolous allegations in the garb of instant complaint with oblique motive to save face at expense of the public spirited process of this Commission. It is an abuse of the process of this Commission which ought to be viewed seriously.

I draw the kind attention of this Commission to the press reports dated 28.10.2014 and 3.11.2014 published in the Indian Express.

Perusal of the press report dated 28.10.2014 above shows that a mob left the premises of Mr. Sunil Vaid, a Party worker of the Complainant’s Party, just before the abhorable incident.

A further perusal of these press reports informing the general public about the police reports demonstrate that the remarks during the press conference were based upon information available in public domain. The comments were made in respect of past events and not to give rise to any fresh event. These were in nature of an opinion which I feel every citizen has a right to hold and express based on bonafide impressions drawn from information in circulation in public domain. The complainant has magnified the remarks. The remarks made at a press conference to media and not to a congregation of persons from a particular community about past events and inferences drawn therefrom are liable to be understood as an expression of a view and are understood as such. These remarks contain no potency to aggravate any existing differences or strength to create any mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic. People are wiser and their sensitivity tolerance has to be viewed in light of the fact that they do not form mass view based on such expression of views on past events. Moreover it was not an address to a congregation of people rather it was a press conference as mentioned above.

It is further submitted that the there is no proof or material disclosed by the Complainant to show that any mutual hatred, discord or tension got created between different communities and people of Delhi as a consequence of the such remarks at the press conference.

Recently one MP of BJP, Ms Sadhawi Niranjan was seen calling all those who don’t vote for BJP as “HARAMJADA” in a public meeting and those who vote for BJP as “RAMJAADA”. It is well known that this proclamation was fully detested and there was a political and public outcry. The attack on the church close to this statement gives rise to the possibility of linkage between the two which has not been ruled out as yet. Inference from these developments as a common man is at the root of the impression voiced by me. Further, there is no evidence anywhere to indicate any fall out thereof as alleged. The Complainant is making a mountain out of mole hill. Incidentally, the said MP still continues to hold her Ministerial office.

My innocent and honest bonafide opinion expressed about past incidents especially when cogent and reliable information in that regard was already in circulation in public domain cannot be appreciated with a narrow outlook. The Complainant who has been shown to have approached this Commission with unclean hands is magnifying the same with ulterior motive to mislead this Commission. In my humble submission the honest and well meaning process of this commission cannot be allowed to be abused as endeavoured by the Complainant.

It is therefore respectfully requested that in view of my comments and explanation above this Commission may graciously be pleased to dismiss the complaint and withdraw the Notice under response.

New Delhi (Arvind Kejriwal)

Dated: January 22,2015 National Convener

ENCL: a/a