It's Modi govt that wanted to bring inheritance tax: Cong

New Delhi: The Congress on Wednesday asserted that it has no plans to introduce inheritance tax in the country as a row erupted over the remarks by its leader Sam Pitroda, who also later said that his comments on the issue had nothing to do with the party policy.

Pitroda had spoken about inheritance tax in the United States while delving into the issue of redistribution of wealth.

As the Bharatiya Janata Party latched on it to target the Congress, the opposition party first distanced itself from the remarks of the US-based president of its overseas wing and then launched a counter-offensive claiming it was the BJP that wanted to impose an 'inheritance tax'.

It cited the remarks made in the past by some ruling party leaders, including former union minister Jayant Sinha and the party's social media head Amit Malviya, to buttress its claim.

"I would like to categorically state that Congress has no plan on the inheritance tax. (Sam) Pitroda is a very distinguished professional and has made many contributions to the development of India. He expresses his views on the topic he feels strongly about.

"He has expressed his views in the American context, which has no relevance for us. He does not speak on behalf of the Congress," Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said.

With his remarks triggering a row, Pitroda said on X, 'It is unfortunate that what I said as an individual on inheritance tax in the US is twisted by Godi media to divert attention from what lies the PM is spreading about the Congress manifesto. PM's comments on Mangal Sutra and gold snatching is simply unreal.'

'I mentioned US inheritance tax in the US only as an example in my normal conversation on TV. Can I not mention facts? I said these are the kind of issues people will have to discuss and debate. This has nothing to do with the policy of any party including Congress,' he said.

'Who said 55 per cent will be taken away? Who said something like this should be done in India? Why is BJP and media in panic,' Pitroda asked.

However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi seized on Pitroda's remarks on inheritance tax to step up the BJP's attack on the issue of 'wealth redistribution', saying 'zindagi ke saath bhi, zindagi ke baad bhi' is the opposition party's mantra to 'loot' people.

Ramesh said it was former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi who had abolished Estate Duty in 1985.

He also shared a 15-minute speech by Jayant Sinha at the Forbes India Philanthropy Awards 2013 to claim that he was in favour of an inheritance tax.

'The Congress has no plan whatsoever to introduce an inheritance tax. In fact, Rajiv Gandhi abolished Estate Duty in 1985. Please listen to BJP MP Jayant Sinha, once MoS Finance in the Modi Sarkar, and later Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Finance.

'He has spent 15 long minutes vehemently arguing in favour of an Inheritance Tax of 55 per cent, like in the US,' Ramesh said.

He also alleged that the prime minister 'is worried and is scared and has been deliberately giving communal colour to our manifesto'.

"He is deliberately making all kinds of allegations against us as he is set to be defeated this time and BJP is halved in the North and is wiped out in the South. So all this is being done to divert attention from the real issues.

"Pitroda ji's comments are being deliberately sensationalised and presented out of context to divert attention from the malicious and hate-filled election campaign of Prime Minister Narendra Modi," the Congres leader claimed.

Ramesh said in a democracy an individual is at liberty to discuss, express, and debate his personal views.

'This does not mean that Mr Pitroda's views always reflect the position of the Indian National Congress. Many times they do not,' he said.

'Sensationalising his comments now and tearing them out of context are deliberate and desperate attempts at diverting attention away from Mr Narendra Modi's malicious and mischievous election campaign; that is anchored only in lies and more lies,' Ramesh said in his post on X.

He also posted, '... In 2017, reports emerged that the Modi Sarkar was going to re-introduce inheritance tax. Fact Three: In 2018, the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley praised Inheritance Taxes for spurring large endowments to hospitals, universities in the West.'

'Fact Four: News reports emerged that Modi Sarkar would introduce an Inheritance Tax in Union Budget 2019,' Ramesh said in another post.

In his poll rallies, Modi claimed that Pitroda's remarks have exposed the Congress' hidden agenda and that the party has become so removed from the country's social and family values that it wants to legally rob people of their assets and lifelong savings they want to bequeath to their children.

Home Minister Amit Shah also flayed Pitroda's remarks, saying, 'The appeasement politics of the Congress stand exposed today with Sam Pitroda's statement on wealth redistribution. He reaffirmed the party's intention to seize the property of the majority and distribute it among the minority.'

'It yet again brings to the fore that the empowerment of India's poor, Dalits, youth, tribes, and backward classes was never on Congress's agenda,' he said on X.'Can't control polls': SC to EVM critics as it reserves order

The Supreme Court said on Wednesday it cannot 'control the elections' or issue directions simply because doubts have been raised about the efficacy of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), as it reserved its judgment on a clutch of petitions claiming the polling devices can be tinkered with to manipulate the results.

The court said it cannot change the thought process of those doubting the advantages of polling machines and advocating going back to ballot papers.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), after taking note of the answers to queries it had posed to the Election Commission.

It sought answers from an official of the poll panel to five questions related to the functioning of EVMs including whether the microcontrollers fitted in them are reprogrammable.

Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Nitesh Kumar Vyas, who had earlier made a presentation to the court on the functioning of EVMs, was summoned by the bench to appear at 2 pm to answer the queries.

Vyas, while responding to the question about microcontrollers, said they are one-time programmable at the time of manufacture and installed in all the three units of EVMs -- the balloting unit, VVPAT and the control unit.

They cannot be reprogrammed thereafter, he asserted.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO 'Association for Democratic Reforms', claimed the EC official's statement was not fully correct. He cited a report by a private body to back his contention.

"The report says that the kind of memory used in these three units can be reprogrammed. A malicious programme can easily be uploaded at the time of symbol loading," he claimed, adding efforts should be made to remove the doubts about the transparency of EVMs.

Justice Khanna told Bhushan that the court has to rely on the data and information provided by the EC, a constitutional body, which says the programme in the memory of an EVM can be written only once.

"If you are prejudiced or predisposed about something, then we cannot help it. We cannot change your thought process," the bench told Bhushan.

Justice Datta said, "Can we issue a mandamus (directions) on the basis of a suspicion? The report you (Bhushan) are relying on goes on to say that there is no incident of manipulation yet. We can't control the elections. We are not the controlling authority of another constitutional authority."

He told Bhushan that law will take care if something goes wrong with the voting machines.

The bench recalled that the top court had in the past issued two orders on VVPAT, an independent vote verification system which enables electors to see whether their votes have been recorded correctly.

"One order was passed when the court ordered the use of VVPAT during elections and the other order was when the court directed that the use of VVPAT should be increased from one to five booths. Now, you all want us to issue directions for going back to ballot papers," the bench said, adding all it can do is pass directions to strengthen the existing EVM system, if required.

The apex court had in April 2019 asked the poll panel to increase the number of EVMs that undergo VVPAT physical verification from one to five per assembly segment in a parliamentary constituency.

One of the petitioners has sought each and every vote cast to be tallied with the VVPAT slips.

Referring to the earlier verdicts, Justice Datta said, "One of the two judgments said use VVPAT and it was followed. But where did it say match all VVPAT slips (with votes cast using EVMs)? Has any candidate ever come forward to say that there were instances of mismatch based on VVPAT slips?"

Justice Khanna told Bhushan that the matter was listed on Wednesday for a second time because the court needed clarification on certain aspects as there was some confusion over the answers given by the EC to 'frequently asked questions' (FAQs) about EVMs.

"We needed some clarification and therefore we called them (EC)," the bench said, adding there cannot be any second hearing on the efficacy of EVMs.

Justice Khanna said the EC has its own independent system, its own technical experts and it is not a political party.

During the hearing, Vyas told the court that microcontrollers installed in balloting unit, control unit and VVPAT cannot be accessed physically in any manner as there is a tamper detection feature which makes an EVM inoperative the moment anyone tries to open the machine.

Vyas said EVMs are stored for 45 days after the polling in conformity with the limitation period for filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.

"On the 46th day, the returning officer writes to the registrar general of the high court on whether any election petition has been filed. If the registrar general informs about filing of election petition, then EVMs of that constituency are sealed and preserved for future purpose," he said.

When senior advocate Santosh Paul, appearing for one of the petitioners, said that source code of EVMs should also be disclosed for transparency, the court rejected his contention, saying, "No, the source code cannot be disclosed as there is a chance of it to be misused."

After a two-day hearing, the bench had on April 18 reserved its verdict on the pleas. However, the matter was listed again on Wednesday as the court wanted some clarifications from the EC.

NGO 'Association for Democratic Reforms' (ADR), one of the petitioners, has sought reversal of the poll panel's 2017 decision to replace the transparent glass on VVPAT machines with an opaque glass through which a voter can see the slip only when the light is on for seven seconds.

The petitioners have also sought the court's direction to revert to the old system of ballot papers.

The seven-phase Lok Sabha polls began on April 19 and will conclude with the announcement of results on June 4.
...............