That Justice R S Pathak downplayed several crucial issues linked to his Volcker inquiry —despite his access to key evidence and depositions — is evident from the 102-page complaint sent by the Enforcement Directorate to nine individuals and companies as part of its probe into the Iraqi oil payoffs.

For one, the ED categorically says that former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh sought the oil allocation “for himself’’ and nominated Andaleeb Sehgal and his firm to “do the transaction on his behalf.” The Pathak report stopped short, saying that had it not been for Natwar the deal wouldn’t have gone through.

While the Pathak report described former Ambassador Aneil Mathrani’s amnesia in recalling details of the Natwar Singh-led Congress delegation to Baghdad, it was Mathrani who confirmed to the ED the presence of Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal during all meetings held before signing of the oil contracts. The Pathak report only stated it was “possible’’ Jagat Singh was present at the meetings.

Mathrani, as it turns out, gave a detailed account of what he called Natwar Singh’s role prior to the signing of the contracts for 2 million barrels of oil. His sworn testimony: “It was obvious that Natwar Singh was giving appropriate directions to Andaleeb Sehgal to be available in particular places and Government offices in consultation with Jagat...It was clear that the priority for the three, Natwar Singh, Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal, was to apparently tie up business deals.’’

The ED’s report juxtaposes Natwar’s denials — about either writing letters of introduction, the presence of Sehgal in Baghdad and so on — with statements on oath given by Mathrani, Andaleeb and R Dayakar, the then Indian Ambassador in Bagdhad.

... contd.