If a judge quits just before completing a probe, especially one that is a political hot potato involving the expose of middlemen in multi-crore rupee defence deals, eyebrows are bound to be raised. That is precisely what happened on November 23 when Justice K. Venkataswami resigned as head of the commission that was looking into Tehelka's stunning sting operation last year. His resignation came exactly 20 months after he began inquiries into uncomfortable questions raised by the portal, which had shown by means of a spy camera that the Government's defence purchases mechanism was porous, open to bribery and dealmaking, and had even caught politicians taking money.

UNDER A CLOUD: By putting in his papers, Venkataswami contained the controversy

Venkataswami's quitting means different things to different people. The Opposition in Parliament described it as a "crafty ploy" by the Government to delay the probe since it was nearing completion. Senior leaders led by Congressmen Priya Ranjan Das Munshi and Manmohan Singh wanted a joint parliamentary committee to probe the Tehelka expose. The Government, caught in a bind after the Chief Justice of India (CJI) left the onus of finding Venkataswami's successor on the Law Ministry, was unable to find a man who could take over the probe and prevent the inquiry from being derailed.

Left with their fates hanging in the balance are top leaders like Defence Minister George Fernandes, Samata Party's Jaya Jaitly and the disgraced former BJP president Bangaru Laxman. These leaders of the ruling NDA as well as some Defence Department officials had always argued that the Tehelka tapes were tampered. All of them had urged that they be allowed to see the original 105 hours of tapes that Tehelka used for the sting operation from which the portal claimed its four-hour presentation was culled out.

Venkataswami chose to shun the path of controversy and opted out of the Tehelka Commission of Inquiry that he headed after the Opposition in Parliament cried hoarse over his parallel appointment as chairman of the Authority on Advance Ruling for Customs and Central Excise.

COMMISSION FACT FILE
REAM STORY		STILL IN-CAMERA
Since its inception in March 2001, the Venkataswami Commission has held 181 sittings, examined 50 witnesses, recorded 3,114 pages of deposition and passed 720 interim orders. The tenure of the Commission is till January 23, 2003.		Justice Venkataswami mentioned that he was on the verge of completing the probe into the 15 defence deals, including the purchase of Sukhoi fighter aircraft. The findings, however, may never be made public.
MUTE OBSERVERS		MONEY TRAIL
The tapes had established that the system of purchase at Army Headquarters is corrupt. The Government, however, has not proceeded against anyone in the tapes on its own.		Government agencies are now pursuing vital leads on First Global (Mauritius), Tehelka's chief funder, through a Letter Rogatory.

When he set out on the job, Das Munshi seemed onto a good thing. He took the Lok Sabha by surprise by raising Venkataswami's dual appointment and alleged a quid pro quo deal. But within hours, the BJP had countered his claims. It said the then CJI S.P. Bharucha had recommended Venkataswami's name to the Government as far back as January 14, 2002. The appointment was officially notified in May. So why the furore now, the BJP asked? The political blame game had begun in full earnest.

While the BJP claimed that it had followed the advice of the CJI, it had no answer to the question: given the sensitive nature of the Tehelka inquiry should Venkataswami have been appointed a judge for advance rulings even if the CJI had so recommended? But the BJP was not splitting hair. The party clearly calculated that if the probe was derailed, it was not going to shed tears over it.

TEHELKA'S FATE

Done In By Big Brother

"The entire attitude of the Government has been terrible for free media and for democracy." TARUN TEJPAL A year and a half ago, Tarun Tejpal and Tehelka, the portal he edited, were being hailed for 21st century journalism. "Operation Westend", with its innovative use of spy cameras, was one of the biggest scoops in Indian history. Yet, today, its 105-strong staff has come down to 15. It has not paid salaries for 11 months. Tehelka is broke. Why? As the portal and its supporters see it, it has been singled out by the Government and put through a "process of attrition-financially and psychologically". On the day Tejpal was to appear in the witness box for the first time, a CBI team raided the Tehelka office, alleging a "poaching case". Aniruddha Bahal, the senior editor who worked on "defencegate", received a book advance from reputed publishing houses abroad. The Government accused him of money laundering. Finally, First Global, a financial services firm that owned 14.5 per cent of Tehelka, was "hounded out of business", raided 25 times and its promoters, Shankar Sharma and Devina Mehra, "served 200 personal summons ... detained thrice". "All this without a single chargesheet or tax demand." No wonder Tehelka feels hunted.

Fernandes and Jaitly, who were looking forward to a "verdict" from the commission, must have been disappointed by the development. Jaitly says she has been working more than 10 hours a day preparing for her defence. Fernandes, who is also NDA convener, was taken back into the Government in October 2001 even though the commission had not completed its probe. Fernandes has since faced the hostility of opposition parties who refuse to pose questions to him in Parliament. A clean chit by the panel would have lifted the blockade. Jaitly, who had quit as Samata Party president, too was looking to be politically rehabilitated. Their calculations seem to have gone awry.

To recap, the commission's report on the 15 defence deals, whose hearings took place in-camera, was almost ready. In all 961 pages of deposition were recorded. The Venkataswami Commission was given four terms of reference, two of which were to inquire into high-profile defence procurements, to find out if prescribed procedures had been followed and if certain individuals and organisations had made illicit gains. Term D authorised the commission to look into "all aspects relating to the making and publication of these allegations". In short, to investigate the investigative journalists, a point Tehelka finds unfair.

TASTE OF ITS OWN MEDICINE

NAIL MAIL: JAITLY PINS LAWYERS Posing as Anurag Sharma, a consultant to a bogus Dubai-based firm, Samata Party's Jaya Jaitly sent an e-mail on August 10 to Siddharth Aggarwal (siddharth_a@hotmail.com) counsel in Tehelka Commission. She wanted a title search done on a plot of land in Gurgaon for a hospital. The reply came to her on August 12 from sluthra@del6.vsnl.net.in. Curiously, it belongs to Siddharth Luthra, the Tehelka lawyer. Luthra said his firm Luthra and Associates "does in fact undertake such assignments". Among Luthra's associates is Aggarwal. Jaitly says Aggarwal shouldn't have been part of the commission's team since Luthra was representing Tehelka. Why was Venkataswami not informed about this 20 months ago? Also, Aggarwal was privy to confidential defence documents and meetings with Venkataswami. Information could have been shared with Luthra, Aggarwal's boss. All along there was a direct conflict of interest.

The commission held 181 sittings, examined 50 witnesses, recorded 3,114 pages of deposition and passed 720 interim orders during its 20-month term. These are, of course, apart from the probe into the defence deals. But at Tehelka, such impressive statistics are taken with a moundful of salt. Tehelka says that only the Government and the commission's lawyers have been privy to these proceedings; neither Tehelka nor the others have been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses or be present during the proceedings.

Also, the cross-examination was done at the instance of the Government, which claimed privilege over the documents relating to these deals. Tehelka says it ended up cross-examining Fernandes without access to these documents. In effect, the website has been kept out of the most crucial part of its own investigation. And the Government is not bound to make its findings public.

The upshot has been that the Tehelka mystery remains where it was on that day in 2001 when the image of the then president of the ruling party grabbing a wad of notes struck home the message that corruption in India was all-pervasive. It could have been the time for a trenchant break. Instead, consider what has happened. Fernandes is back in the Cabinet. It is Tehelka's intrepid journalists who are facing uncertainty (see box). Now the inquiry too has been sent into an unpredictable spiral. Will the truth ever emerge? Justice Venkataswami's departure only enhances the doubts.

-with Rajeev Deshpande