Free Press Journal

Robert Vadra must now face the music

FOLLOW US:

Robert Vadra

In the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections in 2014, the BJP had made a big issue of the dubious land deals of Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra and had alleged favours having been doled out to him by the then Congress government of Bhupinder Singh Hooda in Haryana.

With the substantiation of those charges by the latest Comptroller and Auditor General’s report it is on the cards that action against Vadra would now follow. Having seen how Mrs Indira Gandhi had capitalized on public sympathy after she was arrested when she was out of power, the BJP was indeed once bitten twice shy. It wanted a body like the CAG to deliver on the allegations before it cracks down on the privileged Vadra.

The Congress is predictably crying ‘wolf’ but there will not be many takers for the version of a party that was virtually decimated in the elections as public anger on rampant corruption manifested itself strongly.


It is now on record that Vadra’s company Skylight Hospitality made a windfall profit by selling land which it had bought from the Haryana government at a throwaway price to a real estate major DLF after getting permission to change the land use.  In the bargain, Vadra ‘s company and consequently he enriched himself through this route.

So brazen was the then Haryana chief minister Hooda in favouring Vadra that when an upright officer of the State government, Ashok Khemka, cancelled the deal, he was harassed and hounded and the deal was restored.

The tables have now turned. With the BJP in power now both at the Centre and in Haryana, it is time now for Vadra to face the music and to have to answer a lot of inconvenient questions.

It would be in the fitness of things that Robert Vadra be arrested and be brought before law. If he is found guilty, appropriate punishment must be meted out to him without fear or favour.

Proceedings must also be initiated against Hooda for having stood in the way of revenue accruing to the State exchequer to oblige his party’s president whose son-in-law he purportedly favoured if the prosecution’s case is proved.