• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Privilege motion against Sinha on UTI issue

Our Bureau

NEW DELHI, Aug. 21

HARDLY a week after the Finance Minister managed to fend off criticism on the UTI affair in Parliament, Mr Sinha has to now brace himself to face another onslaught -- this time in the form of a privilege motion for misleading the Rajya Sabha on the UTI i ssue.

The Congress member, Mr Kapil Sibal, on Tuesday moved a privilege notice in the Rajya Sabha saying that the Finance Minister had misled the House during his reply to a short duration discussion well over 10 days ago. Mr Sinha had then said that the UTI C hairman, Mr P.S. Subramanyam, had kept the Finance Ministry in the dark about the freeze on the sales and repurchase of units of the US-64 scheme.

The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Mr Krishna Kant, said the privilege notice was under consideration. It will now be referred to the Lok Sabha as Mr Sinha is a member of that House.

The Finance Minister, who was present in the House, sought to dismiss it off by saying that the Congress was ``flogging a dead horse'' to gain media attention.

Mr Sibal's contention is that the former Chairman of UTI had claimed in his bail application in a Mumbai court that he had taken the decision to freeze the sales and repurchase of US-64 units, on the advice of the Finance Minister.

The Congress member referred to the July 2 meeting which Mr Subramanyam had with the Finance Minister, a few hours before the UTI board meeting. According to Mr Sibal, Mr Subramanyam claimed that during the meeting with Mr Sinha, the Finance Minister had advised him to either allow redemption of US-64 units at base price or to suspend sale and repurchase of the flagship scheme.

The UTI board had accordingly decided to freeze the sales and repurchase of units of US-64, he said.

Mr Sibal said that what Mr Subramanyam mentioned in the bail application was contrary to Mr Sinha's statement in the Rajya Sabha. He then referred to Mr Sinha's reply to the short duration discussion on UTI in which the Finance Minister had said that Mr Subramanyam had kept him in the dark.

``It was not lack of any desire. But it was entirely because we were kept in the dark,'' Mr Sibal quoted from Mr Sinha's reply to the discussion in the Rajya Sabha earlier this month.