Kalmadi's Republic vs Union of India

NAKED EYE

My worst fears have come true. In a clear case of the SovereignRepublic of Suresh Kalmadi (SRSK) versus the Union of India, SRSKis busy cocking a snook at the Government of India. While everyattempt has been made to paper over all the travails and shortcomingsof the Commonwealth games Organising Committee despite two major runins ; first with Commonwealth games Federation president Mike Fennelland then with OC CEO Mike Hooper, Suresh Kalmadi has managed tosurvive. While the Government of India has tried its level best tocircumvent all financial powers and authority from Kalmadi and Co byinstalling its people in the OC, the ludicrous amount of money beingplopuighed into the Games has become a bit of an elephant and camel,it cannot be hidden under the carpet anymore. At a subterranean level,this internecine war has been fought relentlessly after CAG firstouted the size and scale of the debacle. By not being able to meetdeadlines, the OC is not embarrassing itself, but the nation. Anyhowpromises have been made, commitments given and an uneasy trucebrokered between the warring chieftains. But now news comes that acourt battle is being fought in the Delhi High Court over financialtransparency vis a vis the 2010 Games.
It is a shocking tale of woe. The Games Organising Committee needs tomake its accounts public. It is as simple as that. After all it istaxpayers money which is being used to build out the stadia and otherinfrastructure. The Sovereign Republic of Kalmadi refuses to playball. He is keen to punch above his weight. The OC reckons that is anindepndent body and therefore does not need to keep the UnionGovernment informed of where it is spending these bucks. The verdicthas been reserved by the Delhi High Courtafter hearing both sides. Imagine, the Kalmadi led OC has filed a caseagainst the Union Government saying that it is not a public body andcan keep its accounts private. Are we living in a banana Republic? Howcan Kalmadi and Co refuse to give us the financial details.
In a Mail Today hard hitting front page scoop, it has been revealedthat the OC writ petition before the Delhi High Court has snubbed theCentre claiming there was no direct or indirect control over it by thegovernment and there was no funding by it to manage its day- to- dayaffairs or to run its office. The Centre, on the other hand, allegedthat the claims had no basis asthe CGOC had received substantial funds from it and owed its birth toit. The committee had admitted in its 2005- 06 audit report that it hadreceived Rs 52.58 crore of its receipts of Rs 52.72 crore fromgovernment sources, it pointed out.
I am reproducing this important story from the Delhi based paper forgreater and wider dispersal:Responding to the contention that the government was merely actinglike a financier to the committee, the Centre said it could not betreated as a lender because it had provided a loan of Rs 272.72 crorewithout any security to an organisation without any assets. Thegovernment was committed to provide Rs 767 crore but the committeeitself had later requested for around Rs 1,780 crore, it said.In this year's Budget, the government sanctioned an enhanced provisionof Rs 1,820 crore for the 2010 Games. The government also pointed outthat though it had no share inprofits, it had to bear the loss if the committee failed to generateenough revenue from the 2010 Games. " In this scenario, it is themoral as well as the statutory duty of the petitioner (the CGOC) touse public funds judiciously and be open for scrutiny at all times,"the Centre said in its affidavit before the Delhi High Court.
Refuting the charge that it was encroaching upon the role andresponsibility of the committee, the government said it only intendedto ensure accountability of the committee to the public exchequer.The Centre also contested the claim of the committee that it was notunder the control of the government or a public authority accountableto answer queries under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It pointedout that it was a signatory to the November 13, 2003, host citycontract with the Commonwealth Games Federation and the birth of thecommittee arose out of that contract. After execution of the contract,the chairman and composition of thecommittee was decided by the government's core Group of Ministers(GoM) in its meeting on January 29, 2005. The executive board of thecommittee had four government officials as members and two as specialinvitees.
On the claim of the CGOC that it would generate funds on its own, theCentre pointed out that the Delhi government, the Sports Authority ofIndia, the DDA, etc, would provide infrastructure without any usercharges for the Games, but that will generate revenue for thecommittee. Besides, the staff of the committee is paid from its account which isentirely funded by the government, the Centre said.The controversy erupted after a person filed an RTI application beforethe sports ministry seeking to know the details of payments made toactors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Saif Ali Khan among others fortaking them to the Commonwealth Games closing ceremony in Melbourne in2006.
The CGOC refused a request by the ministry to share details andapproached the high court after the law ministry said in 2007 that itwas a public authority. The Central Information Commission ( CIC) hadin November 2006 heldthat the Indian Olympic Association ( IOA) was a public authority andhad directed it to share with the RTI applicant the particulars ofexpenses incurred by it on tours in connection with the CommonwealthGames. An appeal by the IOA against the CIC order had been clubbed with thecommittee's petition before the high court and was heard together.
The sports ministry, which had been neutral before the CIC, hadsupported the RTI applicant before the high court. It gave details offunds sanctioned by it to the IOA and maintained that it was a publicauthority and was bound to share information under the RTI law.The Delhi High Court, which clubbed both the matters in January thisyear, has reserved its verdicts on both the petitions raising thesimilar questions of law to be decided. Until the pronouncement of theverdict, the operation of the November2007 government order would remain suspended as the court had stayedit while issuing notice to the government on the committee's petitionin February 2008.
In parliament only the other day, the minister of state for sports P P Patil hasstated categorically that the 2010 Commonwealth games will cost Rs10,550 crore. Arten't we as Indians eligible to know how the OC isspending this money. If the Jawahar Lal Nehru staidum alone is costingRs 962 crore, the Indira gandhi stadium is costing Rs 669 crore whilethe Games Village an additional Rs 828 crore; then we certainly needto get into the innards of the financials to know what exactly isgoing on at the OC. Mr Patil also revealed in parliament that the OCwill generate revenues of Rs 1708 crore from broadcasting rights,sponsorships, ticketing et al. The deficit is an astronomical Rs 8842crore.
Something is seriously amiss. The nature of the beast is such that hedoesn't want this financial detail to come out in the open. Thesurmise is clear - it is hiding something. That is simply unacceptablein a democracy. This is a travesty.