Documentations of consultations between Chidambaram and Raja on 2G issue

Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy released documents at a press conference in Chennai on November 22, 2011 that throws light on the consultations between the then Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and Communications Minister A. Raja on the pricing of 2G spectrum case. While one of them was a note titled 'Spectrum Issues Update' from the Department of Economic Affairs of the Finance Ministry, the other was a letter from Mr. Chidambaram to Mr. Raja suggesting that they meet and discuss the issues and later on to present their conclusions to the Prime Minister.

News reported by AR for Newsvision

2G accused can't be jailed indefinitely: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday while granting bail to five corporate executives in the 2G spectrum scam case said that the offences that were charged against him were serious in nature because of the huge losses caused by the exchequer but could not be kept in jail indefinitely. The bench comprising of Justices G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu said that they are conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country.

It added that, it is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period.

 The CBI has already completed its investigation and filed the charge sheet where the court said that their presence is not necessary so as to complete the investigation and thus they are entitled to the grant of bail pending the trial on stringent conditions in order to support the apprehensions expressed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The five executives namely Sanjay Chandra of Unitech Wireless, Vinod Goenka of Swan Telecom as well as Reliance Group's Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair are among the 14 individual accused in the case, led by the Former Minister A. Raja.

The earlier judges had challenged the earlier judgment and common order of the Delhi High Court, rejecting their bail pleas due to the magnitude of the offence and gravity of the accusations laid down against them.

While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Dattu said that there is no doubt that the offences alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of the alleged huge loss to the exchequer, and that by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondents (CBI) that the accused if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or alter the evidence.

The court added that when the undertrial prisoners are detained in custody to an indefinite period, Art 21 of the Indian Constitution is violated.

The judgment said that the trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail no longer than the detention period, had they been convicted.

News reported by AR for Newsvision

Chidambaram alone couldn't have cancelled 2G licences: CBI

The CBI on Thursday strongly defended P. Chidambaram in the Supreme Court, saying he could not be accused of not having done anything to prevent the 2G spectrum allocation scam or cancel licences during his tenure as Union Finance Minister. Cancellation of licences, being a major policy, could have been done only by the government and not by Mr. Chidambaram alone.

Senior counsel, K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the CBI told a Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly that it is easy to attack the then Finance Minister P. Chidambaram as it will get them headlines and it is politically fruitful for them. Attacking the then Finance Secretary D. Subbarao will not get them headlines.

Counsel said that the consistent stand of the Finance Ministry and Mr. Chidambaram on entry fee, licences and spectrum was that they should be auctioned. But the then Telecom Minister, A. Raja, postponed a Full Telecom Commission meeting, scheduled for January 9, 2008, where the issue of auction was to have been discussed, to January 15, 2008.

Mr. Venugopal said Mr. Raja jumped the gun and issued Letters of Intent to telecom companies on January 10, 2008. The then Finance Minister could not have cancelled the licences by himself as it had to be a major policy decision by the government.

Mr. Venugopal said the CBI was an independent agency and was conducting investigating the investigation in one of the most high profile cases in the history of India. As a result of independent investigations, a Minister (Raja), a member of a coalition partner in the government, and Ms. Kanimozhi, a daughter of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam president M. Karunanidhi, were arrested and  the role of one or more former Minister, Dayanidhi Maran was being probed.

The CBI officers were doing their duty day and night and investigation of this magnitude could have normally taken at least a year and a half to be completed. The Ministries of Law and Corporate Affairs and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had given unsolicited opinions, but the CBI was not accepted by them. Counsel said that they have not accepted the report of the TRAI on zero loss. Counsel produced the 500-page document prepared by the then Finance Secretary D. Subbarao, now RBI Governor and a decision to issue licences was taken by Mr. Raja.

Justice Singhvi drew counsel's attention to some missing papers and asked  him get them included on Friday.

Arguments will continue on October 10.

News reported by AR for Newsvision online newspaper

Chidambaram had no role in 2G scam

The Government today insisted that the former Telecom Minister had no role anywhere in the 2G spectrum allocation controversy and demands that his resignation were a "conspiracy" against him. The government also justified the fact that the minutes of a meeting between Chidambaram and the then Telecom Minister A Raja was not recorded, stating it was not required. Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal told the reporters that the demand for Chidambaram's resignation was a conspiracy. Chidambaram had no role anywhere. Whatever and whenever he took any decisions, he had taken it after many consultations. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal, claimed that Mr. Chidambaram had never recommended to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that start-up spectrum should be treated as a "closed-chapter" and there was some confusion regarding it. He maintained that his comments were about additional spectrum charges. He said that it was not a structured meeting like a Cabinet meeting orGOM where the minutes are prepared immediately after. Rejecting charges of favouring Reliance Communications, Mr. Sibal insisted that the penalty of Rs.5 crore imposed on it for interrupting services briefly was as per the agreement between USO Fund and the private operator. The charges which were levelled against him by an NGO in a PIL filed in the Supreme Court that the company was imposed a penalty of Rs.5 crore against the Rs.650 crore as a favour, he dismissed it as "malicious, motivated and defamatory". Mr. Sibal questioned the basis for computing the penalty of Rs.650 crore whereas the USO Fund itself had recommended a penalty of Rs. 50 crore only. Mr. Sibal said that the services were restored on February 16 this year and the company had paid a penalty of Rs.5.5 crore. He stated that the penalty was calculated on the basis of duration of disruption of services (7-45 days) as provided in the agreement of USO Fund and RCom. Mr.  Sibal suggested that the PILs were being misused as they were only meant for serving "public interest" and "not to settle personal score". An application was filed in the Supreme Court by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) alleging that Mr. Sibal had reduced the penalty from Rs.650 crore to Rs.5 crore against Anil Ambani headed RCom for violations in the UASL agreement. Reported by,      AR