THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Your Facebook post seem to indicate a difference of opinion regarding the handling of Sprinklr case.
There are no differences on the (Sprinklr) issue. I was just pointing out two crucial questions. Has the deal violated laws enacted by the Parliament regarding privacy of citizens? Secondly, has the rules that govern deals with foreign firms been violated? There should be a thorough probe into these two factors.
Why do you insist on a CBI probe?
In order to go into the crux of the matter, we need to examine the documents in Sprinklr’s possession. Only a Central agency can summon and examine the files of a foreign firm. That’s why I insist on such an inquiry.
So, shouldn’t these aspects be highlighted in the case?
The demand for a CBI probe can be made afresh in the High court. Any individual including me can implead as party to the case with this demand.
What about party state president K Surendran’s demand for a vigilance inquiry?
How can the state Vigilance department, controlled by Pinarayi Vijayan, conduct a fair and impartial probe? Maybe, the Vigilance probe would have been enough if corruption was the only issue. But the main issue here is data breach, which only the CBI can unearth.