Bangalore Mirror: Bangalore: Monday,
June 13, 2016.
RTI request
seeking a look at CM's watch denied; why the secrecy, wonders activist.
Chief
Minister Siddara-maiah's controversial gift-turned-state property, the Rs
70-lakh Hublot watch, is likely to remain a mystery forever. With the
government nailing down a clear 'no' to the request to inspect the luxury
wristwatch, the curtains have officially been forced down upon the controversy.
The
watch-gate, as it came to be known, led to much flutter and fury, even as the
CM tried his best to brush it off, even jokingly offering to sell it to HDK for
Rs 5 lakh.
The watch
soon became the epicenter of high political drama. In February, Siddaramaiah
had claimed that it was gifted to him by a long-time friend, Girish Chandra
Verma.
Then came the
stolen-property theory. HDK alleged that it was stolen from an NRI, Sudhakar
Shetty. Shetty, however, had later clarified that the said watch had nothing to
do with his own stolen goods.
From being an
expensive gift, to a political weapon to a stolen piece of property, the watch
donned many hats. But to the question, 'what is it really', one may never get a
real answer.
For activist
S Bhaskaran, who has been on the pursuit for truth behind the watch, it could
be the end of the road.
Initially,
Bhaskaran was not given a photograph of the watch. The chief secretary's office
which received the watch (Hublot Big Bang - 301 - M) on March 2 from the
Legisla-tive Assembly, along with the CM's submission letter that he had
received it as a gift on July 2015 has said that there is no provision to
inspect it.
Bhaskaran had
then sought permission under the RTI Act to have a look at it. But his request
was denied. "I'm directed to inform you that there is no provision to
inspect an object under section 2 (j) (i) (ii) and (iii) of the RTI act,"
Sharanappa, personal secretary to chief secretary to government (cabinet
affairs), said in a letter on June 3. But Bhaskaran claimed that "section
2 (j) (i) (ii) (iii) of the RTI Act clearly allows taking notes, extracts,
certified copies of records or documents, and taking certified samples of
material.
"A watch
can be an accessory or a component. Just because there is no word 'object' in
the RTI Act, denial clearly indicates a move to cover it up. So with this, it
is clear that no one can ever watch the watch closely," he said.
Bopaiah's
opinion
Former
speaker KG Bopaiah, however, doesn't see the logic in being denied permission
to inspect the watch.
"Any
state property may be allowed to be inspected, except in the case when doing so
risks security. The watch is not an exceptional case and can be allowed to be
inspected," he told Mirror.
.JPG)
.JPG)
