Jain Commission Fallout: P Chidambaram
"What Evidence?"

On February 25, 1991, I spoke in the Lok Sabha on the dismissal of the DMK government in Tamil Nadu. As a party spokesman, I was free to give expression to matters which I had read, heard, gathered or even deduced. That is the privilege conferred upon an MP by Article 105 of the Constitution. While giving evidence, the Jain Commission says, I "adhered to the contents" of my speech. That should be the end of the matter.

It appears that the commission expected me to tender new and more "evidence". Evidence is of two kinds: documentary and oral. It is nobody's case that I possessed any documents. Under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, "oral evidence" of a fact shall be direct -- that can be given only by a person who has either seen or heard the fact. I can't invent oral evidence just to please someone.

Let me illustrate my point. After December 6, 1992, various MPs charged the BJP, RSS and the VHP of conspiring and demolishing the Babri Masjid. There are criminal cases against certain accused and also a commission of inquiry. Similarly can an MP or MLA who charged the AIADMK government with corruption be called before a court for oral evidence in support of his allegation? Obviously, an MP or MLA who didn't have direct knowledge of a conspiracy at Ayodhya or AIADMK's corruption cannot be expected to give oral evidence. The distinction between a speech in Parliament and the requirements of oral evidence is very obvious to a lawyer and even to a layman ... it has unfortunately escaped the Jain Commission.

Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd