Two prominent erstwhile Congress Chief Ministers in Madhya Pradesh faced allegations of corruption in the liquor policy and contracts.
When it comes to making decisions about the flourishing and abundant wealth-producing liquor industry, even clever politicians can make mistakes. Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, before entering politics, was a senior officer in the Income Tax Department, an advocate for transparency in information rights and power structures, and a commander of the anti-corruption Anna Hazare movement. However, he is now in jail amidst serious allegations of corruption in changing and promoting the liquor trade policy in Delhi. Kejriwal’s colleagues and leaders of the Congress alliance with him continue to call it a trap spread by central investigative agencies, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and the Bharatiya Janata Party. The court, based on evidence, is ordering the accused in the liquor scam to be kept in jail without bail. Yes, as always, there may be delays in receiving the sentence. In this case, I remembered that two Congress Chief Ministers too were caught in legal cases on liquor. Perhaps Kejriwal’s colleagues or friends from the Congress did not inform him or advised him that scandals are often suppressed over time.
Two prominent erstwhile Congress Chief Ministers in Madhya Pradesh faced allegations of corruption in the liquor policy and contracts. The first case is from the tenure of Congress’ top leader, Chief Minister, Governor, and vice president of the party, Arjun Singh, during which the Jabalpur High Court Bench declared him guilty of changing the government’s liquor policy to benefit a company and allegations of corruption. Acting Chief Justice J.S. Verma and Justice B.M. Lal not only rejected the amended liquor policy of the state government, which was decided in 1984 when Singh was the Chief Minister but in April 1986, they decided that the liquor policy would be changed from April 1, 1986. Companies producing liquor on government land would be asked to install new plants instead of working. Accordingly, in February 1985, the government issued letters of intent to seven existing licensees for the construction of new distilleries. In return for their investment, the government promised them a five-year license to manufacture liquor from April 1, 1986.
The main petitioner, liquor supplier Sagar Agrawal from Jabalpur, challenged the order on the basis that since he was not given the opportunity to bid for establishing new distilleries, his fundamental rights to contract with the government were violated. In his 32-page judgment, Justice Verma upheld the government’s decision to allow the selected seven distilleries to establish new distilleries but cancelled the policy of granting a license to manufacture and supply domestic liquor only to the selected seven, calling it discriminatory. The 19-page judgment of Justice B.M. Lal began by agreeing with the “ultimate conclusion” of his senior judge, but the important thing is that he accepted other arguments of the petitioners that the state would incur a loss of Rs 56 crores in the first five years. Accepting this, as there is “no proper and concrete answer from the state,” he then rejected the policy as a “private treaty/agreement,” which despite “vigorous opposition raised by the Finance Secretary in favour,” came out. During the hearing of the case, Lal also doubted the government’s honesty in reducing the new policy from 30 years to five years.
Justice Lal also made serious and strict comments against the government in his separate remarks. In his decision, Justice Lal went so far as to say that “the truth of corruption is peeking out of the records.” Referring to the new policy as “deceptive,” he said that those responsible for corruption and irregularities in the liquor policy should be dealt with firmly because they are the “demons” of society. After this decision, BJP leaders in Madhya Pradesh demanded the resignation of Arjun Singh. Arjun Singh became the Governor of Punjab. Then this case continued in the Supreme Court, and some legal paths did not lead to jail.
The second case of serious corruption related to liquor is from the tenure of Madhya Pradesh’s Chief Minister and senior Congress leader and MP Digvijaya Singh. During income tax raids, details were found in the diaries of the owners of a major liquor company that the Chief Minister and his ministerial colleagues had allegedly been given Rs 12 crores. The senior income tax officials handed over the documents and diaries found in the raids to Lokayukta Justice Faizuddin. The case was from 1996. But it gained momentum in the assembly in 2001. At that time, Digvijaya Singh, while calling the allegations false, also said that he would write a letter to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha complaining that the officer has defamed him by sending documents to the Lokayukta. The case was based on the records of the diary, and with the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the hawala scandal in the state invalid, Digvijaya somehow escaped in this case.
There is no doubt that in cases of corruption or any other crime, punishment can only be based on evidence and witnesses in courts from lower to higher. There was no digital revolution during Arjun’s or Digvijaya’s tenure, and industry and business were also limited. Now cases of businesses worth hundreds or thousands of crores and corruption are coming to light. Allegations of involvement in the liquor policy scam from Delhi to Telangana and Goa are emerging against Kejriwal. If there is not enough evidence, then even Kejriwal’s closest aides and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Satyendra Jain, MP Sanjay Singh, and the daughter of the Telangana Chief Minister and former MP and Legislative Council member Kavitha would not be in jail. Sisodia could not even get relief from the Supreme Court.
Opposition leaders with Kejriwal will try to sympathize with the people through protests on the streets or through rallies against the government. But can they gain public sympathy like Jayaprakash Narayan or Indira Gandhi?
On the other hand, despite serious allegations of corruption or other crimes against leaders like Lalu Yadav and others, talks of getting votes in some areas are also emerging. Therefore, the real decision will be made by the court or the people.