16th November 2013
Modi and Madhuri – more details of the alleged relationship. And no, this is not a father-daughter relationship.
This statement by suspended IAS officer Pradeep Sharma is from the following source. I'm sure more will come out fairly soon. This whole thing is getting quite ugly.
Note that Modi is a married man. The issue of his extra-marital alliances should be of concern, but this is much more than that: the case of misuse of the taxpayer machinery to spy on "Madhuri". Modi may have a problematic personal life, but he has no business to use TAXPAYER FUNDS to support his private relationships.
Note that Madhuri's father's statement needs to be taken with a strong pinch of salt, since Madhuri is an adult and she is not necessarily expected to talk about her private affairs with her father.
“THE CHIEF MINISTER’S ILLICIT LIASON WITH MS –name removed–:
It was in between 2003 to 2006 that the Petitioner, in the capacity of District Collector of Kutch, commissioned a series of projects toward the beautification of Bhuj city and overall development of Kutch district. A site was selected for developing a hill garden in 2005, for which [MADHURI] —name removed—from Bangalore was selected as the Landscape Architect. The Chief Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, visited Kutch to inaugurate the hill garden project upon its completion, and was at this time introduced to Ms. [MADHURI]–name removed—. Thereafter, Ms. —name removed— communicated to the Petitioner her decision to return to Bangalore as well as shared her ongoing interaction with the Chief Minister. The fact of the intimacy between Shri Modi and Ms.—name removed— was confirmed when the Petitioner was in close proximity of the two and overheard their conversation during one of the official functions. Subsequently, Ms. —name removed—further revealed to the Petitioner that when she called Shri Modi in his office, he would freely interrupt scheduled meetings, walking out of his office on senior officials in order to speak to her privately.
During the second week of March 2006 at approximately 5:00 PM, Ms. —name removed—called the Petitioner and conveyed that she had just landed in Ahmedabad city and was planning to visit Bhuj. Shortly thereafter, when the Petitioner attempted to telephone her, Ms. —name removed—’s cell phone was switched off and remained so for the next 48 hours. Two days later at approximately 11:00 AM, Ms. —name removed— called the Petitioner and conveyed that she was at the residence of Shri Modi, and had spent the duration of the previous two days at his residence. Subsequently, she met the Petitioner in Bhuj and described in detail her stay with Shri Modi.
Ms. —name removed—described that the next day being Holi, many people visited Shri Modi for the festival and played with colour. Shri Modi attended to them briefly and returned to his quarters. In the meantime, Ms. —name removed— had developed fever and requested a physician, but Shri Modi conveyed that calling a physician was impossible, given the peculiarity of their situation. The following morning she left for Vadodara in a car sent for by Shri Modi.
In November 2008, while the Petitioner was posted as Municipal Commissioner, Bhavnagar, Ms. —name removed—contacted the Petitioner to inform him that Shri Modi had asked her to do a project on Alang Shipyard for which she would like to come to Bhavnagar. She came to Bhavnagar and, during that time, the Petitioner observed that she was constantly in touch with Shri Modi, who was abroad and probably in South Africa. She also conveyed to the Petitioner that Shri Modi had asked her about the Petitioner and whether the Petitioner knew about her intimate relationship with Shri Modi. In one conversation, Ms. —name removed—showed the Petitioner a text message that the Chief Minister had sent to her from abroad. The Petitioner made a note of the cell phone number from which it had originated. The number was 9909923400.
It is submitted that the Petitioner had two cell phones at the time, with Nos. 99251 99799 and 98240 01729. On one of these, the Petitioner had saved the aforesaid number from which Ms. —name removed— had received personal message from Shri Modi. Once, the Petitioner accidentally dialed Shri Modi’s number, thinking that he was actually calling someone else, but the Petitioner got no reply on Shri Modi’s phone. The Petitioner realized his mistake and promptly disconnected. The Petitioner verily believes that Shri Modi must have found out the address of the holder of the SIM card from which his personal number was [accidentally] dialed, and placed it under observation either with the help of State CID (Intelligence) or illegal phone tapping methods involving the use of electronic equipment through unauthorized collaboration. Shri Modi could then have found that Ms. —name removed— was speaking to the Petitioner often over phone.
Around this time, the Petitioner received an anonymous letter conveying that a video of sexual activity between Ms. —name removed— and one person, was available on an internet website, and the letter advised the Petitioner to desist from contacting Ms. —name removed—, as her character and actions were not befitting of her company with Gujarat State officials. The Petitioner did indeed come across such a video clipping and it now appears to the Petitioner that Shri Modi, who was monitoring the Petitioner’s cell phone calls, started believing that videos involving Ms. —name removed— perhaps included him i.e. Shri Modi…”
More details of the situation.