Co-presented by

Ravi Shankar Prasad questions Congress president Rahul Gandhi over ‘rise’ in income between 2004 and 2014

New Delhi: The BJP on Saturday cited the “rise” in Congress president Rahul Gandhi's income between 2004 and 2014 to question its source, claiming he had no ostensible source of income. There was no response from the Congress.

BJP leader and Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told the media that Rahul’s income had risen from over Rs 55 lakh in 2004 to Rs 9 crore in 2014 as per his election affidavits, and asked an MP’s income can witness such a jump.

 Ravi Shankar Prasad questions Congress president Rahul Gandhi over ‘rise’ in income between 2004 and 2014

File image of law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. Twitter/@BJP4India

"In his election affidavit in 2004, his income was Rs 55,38,123 while in 2009, it rose to Rs 2 crore and in 2014 it rose to Rs 9 crore. We know how much an MP earns. We want to ask Rahul about what this model of development is without an ostensible source of income," he said.

Referring to Gandhi's brother-in-law Robert Vadra, Prasad said, "Till now, we had seen the Vadra model of development under which you invest Rs 6-7 lakh and earn Rs 700-800 crore in two-three years. Now we have come across the Rahul Gandhi model of development."

The senior BJP leader also claimed that Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi had a 4.69-acre farmhouse in Delhi that was rented out to a firm, Financial Technologies (India) Limited, that had been issued show-cause notice for violations pertaining to National Spot Exchange promoted by it.

"When the notice was served, the place was rented out... FTL made a cheque payment of Rs 40 lakh. The firm was issued a notice and within 10 months the place was rented out to them," he said, questioning its timing.

He also questioned Rahul whether he had bought two properties of Rs 1.44 crore and Rs 5.36 crore from Unitech which was linked to the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

"The maximum trial in the case happened before we came to power. I had said the 2G judgement was legally unsound and morally improper. One judge had commented, 'I had been waiting for evidence for seven-eight years'. Is the wait for evidence and the property purchase linked? The matter is under appeal and we have asked for expeditious hearing," he alleged.

Your guide to the latest election news, analysis, commentary, live updates and schedule for Lok Sabha Elections 2019 on Follow us on Twitter and Instagram or like our Facebook page for updates from all 543 constituencies for the upcoming general elections.

Updated Date: Mar 24, 2019 10:06:22 IST