Ishrat files: Chidambaram says G K Pillai backtracked from original standpoint

Image Courtesy: Youtube

Former union finance minister P Chidambaram played down the former UPA government functionary G K Pillai’s claim that a second affidavit in Ishrat Jahan’s case was drafted at a ‘political level’ and that he was uninformed about the ‘changes’ made in it.

Speaking at the launch of his book Standing Guard: A Year in Opposition on Monday, Chidambaram claimed that the case files passed Pillai’s table ‘‘at least three times’’. He also claimed that he had only made certain ‘editorial changes’ in order to the improve the quality of the language used. 

Chidambaram said, “Once when the draft came back from the AG (Attorney General), when he put it up to me and when I sent it back. At least three times, the file went to him (Pillai). And now they say those papers are missing. To whose advantage is the vetted draft missing? I want the draft vetted by the AG.”

He added, “(AG) was the top law officer of the country. If the draft vetted by the AG is produced, it will prove that the AG, the top law officer of the country, has looked into the draft. I’ve nothing to hide and I hope the mystery has been unravelled now,” Chidambaram was quoted by media on Monday.

“Pillai said he didn’t know anything about the second affidavit. He was on record in Guwahati in July 2013 saying that the second affidavit was perfectly justified. He changed his view now, and in a free country a person is entitled to change his view,” Chidambaram said, taking a dig at Pillai. 

Chidambaram is largely accused of making changes in the affidavit for political gains. The ‘changes’ were allegedly made in order to falsely indict Gujarat Police and then chief minister Narendra Modi, and to turn Ishrat Jahan’s death into a state-sponsored murder. 

The first affidavit submitted to the Gujrat high court underscored the Intelligence Bureau’s inputs that linked Ishrat to the terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Also read:

P Chidambaram called out in Ishrat Jahan case, Congress on the backfoot