The bolt from the blue has shaken the UDF to its very foundation as it is Chandy, the Unique Selling Point (USP) and biggest asset of the Front, who is in the eye of the political storm.

The case, which has come back to haunt Chandy after 20 years, happened when he was the finance minister in the 1991-1995 Karunakaran Ministry.

A worried Congress high command and Congress allies in the UDF have talked Chandy out of his initial decision to step down following the adverse court order. But the Chief Minister has shed the vigilance portfolio by handing it over to his trusted lieutenant, Revenue Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan.

But the Opposition Left Democratic Front has turned on the heat saying that Chandy has no other option but to resign. Gimmicks like shedding of the vigilance portfolio won’t do. The LDF’s reasoning is that shedding of the vigilance portfolio is of no use as the General Administration department, which controls vigilance, and the Home department, which deputes officers to vigilance continue to be under Mr Chandy. Also, as the CM, he has the powers to influence and intervene in any department. Therefore, he must step down, asserted the Opposition.

The UDF leaders contend that Chandy need not resign as he has not been named an accused in the case and that no new evidence has emerged in the case.

However, the observations made by the judge while ordering reinvestigation cannot but cause concern in the UDF camp.

For instance, the court has rejected the report of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau (BACB) clearing Mr Chandy in the palmolein import deal which took place in February 1992. The report contended that the Finance department could not be held responsible for the irregularities in the deal. The court, however, said its earlier order of March 14 was to probe the role of the former finance minister and not the finance department. The finance department and the finance minister were ‘distinct and separate’. That was the significant observation of the court.

The report noted that it was the Cabinet which decided to import palmolein, and therefore, it was a ‘government policy’. The court observed that “though the government is not accountable to courts in respect of policy decisions, the persons who agreed or took the decisions were accountable for the irregularity or illegality in the decisions”.

The court further noted that Chandy was also aware that “the service fees of 15 per cent was not negotiated.” The department selected Malaysian firm Power and Energy Limited as the handling agent for palmolein import without inviting global tenders.

Mr Oommen Chandy had also claimed at a press conference held on January 19, 2005, that he knew everything about the palmolein import deal.

An immediate crisis may have been averted with Mr Chandy agreeing to stay as the CM. But if the VACB, which has been asked to complete the reinvestigation and submit its report within three months, comes up with an adverse report, Chandy will have to step down. That is when the UDF will face a serious problem: who will replace him? Mr Chandy has been persuaded to stay put as the UDF does not have another leader, who has Chandy’s acceptance and skill to walk the political tightrope. . And that is the real dilemma tormenting the UDF. No, wonder its leaders are fervently hoping for a favourable report while keeping their fingers crossed.

A pumped up opposition, has in the meantime upped the ante by deciding to launch an agitation demanding Chandy’s resignation. As the first step in this regard, the LDF has decided to launch a march to the secretariat in the Capital on August 23 and separate marches in districts on the same day.

The original case was that the hasty and ill-advised import of palmolein had caused the state exchequer a loss of Rs 2.33 crore. Eight persons, including former chief minister late K. Karunakaran, had been made accused in the chargesheet submitted by the vigilance. The Supreme Court had stayed proceedings in the case following a petition filed by Mr Karunakaran. The stay was vacated after the death of Mr Karunakaran. The vigilance court had ordered further investigations on March 14 this year. It is the report submitted by the VACB following this order, which has now been rejected by the court, necessitating reinvestigation into Chandy’s role in the case and submission of a fresh report within three months. (IPA)