Tweet
Will PC be probed? Uncertainty lingers
Did Union Home Minister P Chidambaram have sufficient time at hand to stop his former Cabinet colleague A Raja in the tracks before the spectrum licenses were issued in 2008 at 2001 prices without an auction? The CBI on Thursday claimed that Chidambaram could not be saddled with criminal conspiracy involving Raja as the decision to auction spectrum was to be implemented had the latter not jumped the gun.
Presenting the over 500-page set of communication relating to the Finance Ministry notings in the 2G spectrum pricing issue, the CBI launched an attack against the petitioner before the Court - Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, for deliberately launching attack against Chidambaram and not other officials of the Finance Ministry for the simple reason that "attacking the Finance Minister only gets headline".
Pointing to a note put forward by the Finance Ministry on January 7, 2008, just days prior to the date when spectrum was sold, CBI counsel KK Venugopal said that the Finance Ministry had recommended auction of spectrum for which a full meeting of Telecom Commission was called. This meeting was scheduled to take place on January 9, 2008. But anticipating the outcome, then Telecom Minister A Raja postponed the meeting to January 15 instead and "jumped the gun" to issue spectrum licenses on January 10.
But the Court relied on the noting by then Telecom Secretary and also a member of the Telecom Commission D Subbarao to say: "If we recollect, the PM's letter of November 2, 2007 attached these notings by the Finance Secretary, who had in mind that spectrum was not utilized properly and so he said that whatever price is fixed must add to effective utilization of spectrum."
Also, arguing against an application filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan to set up an SIT to monitor the CBI probe in the 2G scam, Venugopal wondered how Chidambaram could be blamed as Raja was the one who postponed the Telecom Commission meeting, jumped the gun and issued 122 licenses. "The FM's stand was quite clear that you have to auction."
But Bhushan countered that on January 10, 2008 only the letters of intent were out. License agreement resulted much later in February 2008 and spectrum allocation occurred thereafter. "There was plenty of time for Chidambaram to stop Raja before allocation of spectrum was done," he contended.
Even on his demand to probe AG Goolam E Vahanvati, CBI felt that the law officer, who was then the Solicitor General, could not be faulted for giving an opinion as the file reached him on January 7, 2008 by when Raja neither needed nor required an opinion. Moreover, Vahanvati had charged Raja for forging his opinion. The SC had also commented on Wednesday that opinions given by law officers should not be seen as part of a conspiracy as then no law officer would dare to give an opinion.
Though the bench got an impression that Raja "bulldozed" Telecom Commission's move to decide on spectrum pricing, it kept the issue for October 10 since several papers from the set of files submitted to it were missing.
Presenting the over 500-page set of communication relating to the Finance Ministry notings in the 2G spectrum pricing issue, the CBI launched an attack against the petitioner before the Court - Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, for deliberately launching attack against Chidambaram and not other officials of the Finance Ministry for the simple reason that "attacking the Finance Minister only gets headline".
Pointing to a note put forward by the Finance Ministry on January 7, 2008, just days prior to the date when spectrum was sold, CBI counsel KK Venugopal said that the Finance Ministry had recommended auction of spectrum for which a full meeting of Telecom Commission was called. This meeting was scheduled to take place on January 9, 2008. But anticipating the outcome, then Telecom Minister A Raja postponed the meeting to January 15 instead and "jumped the gun" to issue spectrum licenses on January 10.
But the Court relied on the noting by then Telecom Secretary and also a member of the Telecom Commission D Subbarao to say: "If we recollect, the PM's letter of November 2, 2007 attached these notings by the Finance Secretary, who had in mind that spectrum was not utilized properly and so he said that whatever price is fixed must add to effective utilization of spectrum."
Also, arguing against an application filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan to set up an SIT to monitor the CBI probe in the 2G scam, Venugopal wondered how Chidambaram could be blamed as Raja was the one who postponed the Telecom Commission meeting, jumped the gun and issued 122 licenses. "The FM's stand was quite clear that you have to auction."
But Bhushan countered that on January 10, 2008 only the letters of intent were out. License agreement resulted much later in February 2008 and spectrum allocation occurred thereafter. "There was plenty of time for Chidambaram to stop Raja before allocation of spectrum was done," he contended.
Even on his demand to probe AG Goolam E Vahanvati, CBI felt that the law officer, who was then the Solicitor General, could not be faulted for giving an opinion as the file reached him on January 7, 2008 by when Raja neither needed nor required an opinion. Moreover, Vahanvati had charged Raja for forging his opinion. The SC had also commented on Wednesday that opinions given by law officers should not be seen as part of a conspiracy as then no law officer would dare to give an opinion.
Though the bench got an impression that Raja "bulldozed" Telecom Commission's move to decide on spectrum pricing, it kept the issue for October 10 since several papers from the set of files submitted to it were missing.
