New Delhi, (The Telegraph): A revelation that Lalit Modi offered to appoint Sushma Swaraj's husband as a director of a family-run company has pitch-forked the foreign minister back to the centre of a scandal in which the stench of conflict of interest is rising by the day.

The disclosure brings up the question whether Sushma had kept the Prime Minister apprised of the offer as well as her husband's possible "retainership" with the company in line with best practices in public life or she took advantage of a grey area in the code of conduct for ministers.

On his part, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tantalised an audience by referring to corruption and saying raktviheen yudh ke badal mandra rahe hain (clouds of bloodless war are gathering)" - only to clarify that he meant "cyber security".

Sushma had cited "humanitarian" grounds to defend her decision to help Lalit obtain British travel documents last year when his Indian passport stood revoked and his wife was to undergo cancer treatment in Portugal.

But eight months later, on April 15 this year, Lalit sought to appoint Sushma's husband Swaraj Kaushal in his place as an "alternate director" of Indofil, a chemicals firm, according to the letter telecast by Times Now today.

"As a result of my absence from India for a period of more than three months, I hereby wish to appoint Mr. Swaraj Kaushal - a leading advocate based in Delhi - as my alternate director for the future Board meetings of Indofil...," Lalit wrote.

The letter was withdrawn on April 23. Less than two months later, on June 7, The Sunday Times, London, published the first in a series of reports that have bludgeoned the Prime Minister into silence on the topic.

K.K. Modi, Lalit's father and Indofil chief, told TV channels from Mumbai that Kaushal had served as a lawyer for the firm for "20-25 years".

K.K. Modi said it was "quite possible" Kaushal held a retainership with the firm. The disclosure raises the spectre of a sustained financial relationship that Sushma would have been required to reveal to the Prime Minister under a code of conduct for all central and state ministers.

The lawyer-client association between Lalit and Kaushal as well as his daughter Bansuri was known. The former IPL chief had claimed that Kaushal had rendered the service pro bono (as a public service and without payment or for a reduced fee).

Till now, neither Kaushal nor Lalit had spoken about the lawyer also working for Indofil.

"The Prime Minister must reveal to the nation whether the external affairs minister disclosed to him that her husband had received the offer of a job from Mr Lalit Modi," Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala said.

At the heart of Surjewala's demand is the code of conduct prescribed by the home ministry for Union and state ministers in India.

The code requires every minister to "disclose to the Prime Minister, or the chief minister, as the case may be, details of the assets and liabilities, and of business interests, of himself and of members of his family".

It is unclear whether a job offer that was turned down needs to be disclosed under this code but any financial gain for Kaushal from his service as a lawyer to Indofil - as was described as "quite possible" by K.K. Modi - would appear as required for disclosure.

Section 2(e) of the code says: "After taking office, and so long as he remains in office, the minister shall report the matter to the Prime Minister, or the chief minister, as the case may be, if any member of his family sets up or joins in the conduct and management of any other business."

Kaushal did not respond to a message left by this newspaper at the residence he shares with the foreign minister, seeking his comments. But Kaushal told news agency ANI that he never took up the offer of a director's post made by Lalit.

The latest revelations have brought back into focus the foreign minister's role in unilaterally overruling a government note to Britain asserting that diplomatic help to Lalit could undermine bilateral relations.

The disclosure came on a day the Enforcement Directorate (ED) added new charges of foreign exchange violations against Lalit in an FIR. Lalit had left India in 2010 just before the ED issued the first of a string of notices to him on allegations of violations of foreign exchange laws.

Sushma had defended herself on June 14 by contending that she had only extended help on humanitarian grounds. But the foreign minister has remained silent since then on why she didn't ask Lalit to visit the Indian high commission in London to seek temporary travel papers, and why she didn't inform any officials in the foreign office or discuss the case with the ED before deciding to help Lalit.