Launching an attack on the Congress government, Sharma alleged that the vigilance action was being used

Launching an attack on the Congress government, Sharma alleged that the vigilance action was being used

Former minister and BJP MLA from Dharamshala, Sudhir Sharma, reached the state vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (SV&ACB) headquarters in Shimla in connection with the ongoing investigation.

“We are law-abiding people.

Speaking to the media, Sharma said that he fully respects the law and is cooperating with the investigation. He said that the information sought by the vigilance has already been provided wherever required, and the questions raised by the investigating agency are being answered with facts and documents. There is nothing to hide, and I will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation,” Sharma said.

Whatever facts are there will eventually come before the people of Himachal Pradesh.

“It is unprecedented that during an ongoing assembly session, an MLA is called away in this manner. The present government appears determined to suppress the voice of the Opposition. Such an approach cannot continue for long,” he alleged. Sharma asserted that no investigation or political pressure would prevent BJP legislators from raising issues concerning the people of Himachal Pradesh. “The case is in Dharamshala and the documents are there. I fail to understand why I have been summoned to the vigilance headquarters in Shimla and why there is such urgency. Launching an attack on the Congress government, Sharma alleged that the vigilance action was being used to divert public attention from issues that the Opposition was preparing to raise during the assembly session.

Questioning the procedure adopted in the investigation, Sharma said that the case pertains to Dharamshala and the relevant records are also located there. Every investigation has a procedure and protocol, and these must be followed,” Sharma said. He further said that there is a prescribed procedure for informing the legislative assembly when action is initiated against a sitting MLA. The sequence of events in his case raises questions that need to be answered, according to Sharma.