<p class="title">A PIL was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored SIT probe into alleged "irregularities" in the disclosure of assets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.</p>.<p class="title">Saket Gokhale, a Thane-based journalist, claimed that Modi had not disclosed a property located at Gandhinagar in Gujarat in his list of assets in the election affidavits filed during 2012 and 2014.</p>.<p class="title">Modi has “violated the sacrosanct right of the voters/citizens of making an informed choice of the candidate to represent the constituency in the legislature on the basis of true and current information,” he said.</p>.<p class="title">He contended that a plot of land addressed in Gandhinagar, Gujarat was allotted by the state government to Modi. The land, the petition said, was purchased by Modi for a “paltry sum” of Rs 1,30,488 which was reflected in his Gujarat Assembly elections affidavit of 2007.</p>.<p class="title">“However, Modi in his affidavit filed in 2012 and 2014 for the 16th Lok Sabha election did not disclose plot no 411, Sector-I, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat in his list of assets. Instead, he declared one-fourth ownership in plot no 401/A, sector-I, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. This is despite the land records clearly mentioning that the plot no 411 still stands in his name and there exists no entry in the land records qua plot no 401/A,” Gokhale said.</p>.<p class="title">He further claimed that Modi, who is arraigned as a party personally, did not “mention” plot number 411 in his affidavits of 2016 and 2017. Instead, he claimed the same one-fourth ownership in plot no 401/A.</p>.<p class="title">Gokhale said this was the case “though as per land records plot no. 411 is under the name of respondent 3 and no such plot no.401/A exists”.</p>.<p class="title">“Respondent no 3, who holds a high executive office has a duty to set the highest standards of fairness, probity and transparency in life. By hiding details of his assets and by misrepresentation, respondent number 3 is not only guilty of filing false affidavit but has also created a prima face doubt about the veracity of information about him, especially information about his assets,” the petition stated.</p>
<p class="title">A PIL was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored SIT probe into alleged "irregularities" in the disclosure of assets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.</p>.<p class="title">Saket Gokhale, a Thane-based journalist, claimed that Modi had not disclosed a property located at Gandhinagar in Gujarat in his list of assets in the election affidavits filed during 2012 and 2014.</p>.<p class="title">Modi has “violated the sacrosanct right of the voters/citizens of making an informed choice of the candidate to represent the constituency in the legislature on the basis of true and current information,” he said.</p>.<p class="title">He contended that a plot of land addressed in Gandhinagar, Gujarat was allotted by the state government to Modi. The land, the petition said, was purchased by Modi for a “paltry sum” of Rs 1,30,488 which was reflected in his Gujarat Assembly elections affidavit of 2007.</p>.<p class="title">“However, Modi in his affidavit filed in 2012 and 2014 for the 16th Lok Sabha election did not disclose plot no 411, Sector-I, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat in his list of assets. Instead, he declared one-fourth ownership in plot no 401/A, sector-I, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. This is despite the land records clearly mentioning that the plot no 411 still stands in his name and there exists no entry in the land records qua plot no 401/A,” Gokhale said.</p>.<p class="title">He further claimed that Modi, who is arraigned as a party personally, did not “mention” plot number 411 in his affidavits of 2016 and 2017. Instead, he claimed the same one-fourth ownership in plot no 401/A.</p>.<p class="title">Gokhale said this was the case “though as per land records plot no. 411 is under the name of respondent 3 and no such plot no.401/A exists”.</p>.<p class="title">“Respondent no 3, who holds a high executive office has a duty to set the highest standards of fairness, probity and transparency in life. By hiding details of his assets and by misrepresentation, respondent number 3 is not only guilty of filing false affidavit but has also created a prima face doubt about the veracity of information about him, especially information about his assets,” the petition stated.</p>
