2G scam

2G scam:

How A Raja robbed the nation NEW DELHI: The much anticipated CAG report on allocation of 2G spectrum by A Raja was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, raising troubling questions about how an influential politician's greed can exploit the system, how readily many corporates join in the subversion for windfall gains, and how the compulsions of coalition dynamics can paralyze the government. "The entire process of allocation of UAS (Unified Access Service) licences lacked transparency and was undertaken in an arbitrary, unfair andinequitable manner. The Hon'ble Prime Minister had stressed on the need for a fair and transparent allocation of spectrum, and the ministry of finance had sought for the decision regarding spectrum pricing to be considered by an EGoM. Brushing aside their concerns and advices,DoT, in 2008, proceeded to issue 122 new licences for 2G spectrum at 2001 prices, by flouting everycan on of financial propriety, rules and procedures," the 77-page report says. It also mentions how Raja ridiculed officials who suggested more transparent methods to assess the value of spectrum, and went ahead with his decision to arbitrarily allot it to select companies. Raja's decision, it says, has cost the national exchequer anywhere between Rs 1,76,645 crore and Rs 57,666crore. In November 2007, PM Manmohan Singh wrote to Raja expressing concern that given inadequate spectrum and the unprecedented number of applications received from fresh licenses, an auction process be followed.Raja replied saying that the auction of spectrum was considered by both TRAI and Telecom Commission and that his ministry has come to a conclusion that an auction "will be unfair, discriminator and capricious" as it would distort the level-playing field for new entrants. The finance ministry questioned the "sanctity of continuing with a price determined way back in 2001 without any indexation or current valuation andsought review of the matter." DoT member (finance) agreed with the finance ministry, and sought an "in-depth analysis of the issue prior to taking any further action." To this Raja audaciously wrote: "These types of continuous

confusions observed on the file whoever be the officer concerned does notshow any legitimacy and integrity but only their vested interest." As a matter of fact, DoT did not follow "its own guidelines on eligibility conditions, arbitrarily changed the cut-off date for receipt of applications post facto and altered the conditions of the FCFS procedure at crucial junctures without valid and cogent reasons, which gave unfair advantage to certain companies," the report says. Read more:

2G SCAM: SC ASKS GOVT TO FILE AFFIDAVIT ON PM'S SILENCE

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file anaffidavit on Prime Minister's silence on Janata Party president SubramaniamSwamy's petition seeking sanction to prosecute former telecom minister ARaja in the 2G spectrum scam case. The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file the affidavit by Saturday and fixed the hearing on Tuesday. The apex court also said that showing the files were not enough. It has to sayowe the reasons for the delay so that any concealment of fact, the court can fix the accountability. The SC wants the affidavit to be filed on behalf of the Prime Minister by a responsible officer explaining the 11 long months of inaction and silence. The court had on Tuesday asked the government to explain within two dayswhy the "sanctioning authority" - in this case, the Prime Minister - remained silent for 11 months over a request seeking sanction for the prosecution of ARaja in the 2G case. In a reference to PM Manmohan Singh's oversight role, the SC referred to apetition submitted by Subramaniam Swamy to the PM, to say: "We are on the alleged inaction and silence of the sanctioning authority for 11 months on

Swamy's petition seeking sanction to prosecute....This what is worrying us." An SC bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly hearing the2G spectrum case asked solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam to examine relevant files before giving his response on Thursday on why it took the government a month short of a year to tell Swamy that prosecution would be"premature" at this stage. The SC's remarks came on the same day as the Comptroller and Auditor General's scathing report on the allocation of 2G licences in which CAG hasnot only indicted Raja but also indirectly referred to an oversight failure of the ex-minister's role by saying "there is an imperative need to fix responsibility and enforce accountability for lapses". SC's query on why the PM did not decide either way - whether there was merit in Swamy's petition or not - is likely to harden the Opposition demand for a joint parliamentary committee to probe the alleged scam. This, in turn, may complicate the logjam in Parliament as the government is expected to resist aJPC.

Swamy's petition against Raja was not vague: SC

The solicitor general defended the PMO by saying that as the CBI was probing the alleged scam, the "sanctioning authority" (PM) was perfectly within its rights to inform Swamy that it would await the outcome of the investigation before deliberating on whether the Raja should be prosecuted or not. But the bench left little room for confusion. It put its question based on datesand facts Swamy had filed a petition before the PM on November 29, 2008seeking sanction to prosecute Raja; CBI had lodged an FIR on October 21,2009 against "unknown persons"; and the response to Swamy's petition cameon March 19, 2010, from the secretary in the department of personnel and training (DoPT) on behalf of the PMO saying the petition was "premature". "What happened between November 29, 2008 and October 21, 2010?" the bench wanted to know, adding, "We take it that the sanctioning authority was right in awaiting the outcome of a pending inquiry to defer a decision on a private petition seeking sanction to prosecute a minister. But why was the authority silent for 11 months preceding the lodging of the FIR." In view of these questions, the bench had felt it would be proper to issue notice to the government and ask for a response to Swamy's charge of "total in action and silence" against the sanctioning authority. With the solicitor general appearing for DoT, the bench asked him whether hewas ready with a response. Subramanaim said he was. Referring to DoPT secretary Shantanu Consul'sletter to Swamy, the Bench expressed its nagging doubt: "whether the papers(Swamy's petition) were ever placed before the sanctioning authority?" The SG emphatically put this doubt to rest by saying the DoPT letter was anofficial communication and that the "sanctioning authority was in cognizance of the petition". He said: "The sanctioning authority is not overlooking the petition. But, since it required application of mind to the outcome of the probe, the same was conveyed to Swamy by DoPT. It was aimed to convey that the petition is just deferred to await outcome of the detailed probe." But the bench wasn't satisfied. It said: "It's not that Swamy's petition was vague. And his right to seek sanction to prosecute, which is a legal right, doesnot depend on the ipse dixit (a Latin phrase meaning 'he himself said it') of anybody. And the DopT letter terms the petition as 'premature'. Does this mean his right to to seek sanction has not ripened yet? And did the sanctioning authority know at the time of filing of the petition that there will bea CBI probe? We are on alleged inaction and silence. The outcome of the CBI inquiry is totally outside his control. This what is worrying us. Can some one'slegal right be asked to wait?" Attempts by Subramaniam to divert focus from the word "premature" by saying that it just meant to convey that a decision on the petition was being deferred failed to convince the bench. It said: "When the letter comes from the highest authority, the language is carefully used."

bench wanted to know, adding, "We take it that the sanctioning authority wasright in awaiting the outcome of a pending inquiry to defer a decision on aprivate petition seeking sanction to prosecute a minister. But why was theauthority silent for 11 months preceding the lodging of the FIR." In view of these questions, the bench had felt it would be proper to issuenotice to the government and ask for a response to Swamy's charge of "totalinaction and silence" against the sanctioning authority. With the solicitor general appearing for DoT, the bench asked him whether hewas ready with a response. Subramanaim said he was. Referring to DoPT secretary Shantanu Consul'sletter to Swamy, the Bench expressed its nagging doubt: "whether the papers(Swamy's petition) were ever placed before the sanctioning authority?" TheSG emphatically put this doubt to rest by saying the DoPT letter was anofficial communication and that the "sanctioning authority was in cognizanceof the petition". He said: "The sanctioning authority is not overlooking the petition. But, since itrequired application of mind to the outcome of the probe, the same wasconveyed to Swamy by DoPT. It was aimed to convey that the petition is justdeferred to await outcome of the detailed probe." But the bench wasn't satisfied. It said: "It's not that Swamy's petition wasvague. And his right to seek sanction to prosecute, which is a legal right, doesnot depend on the ipse dixit (a Latin phrase meaning 'he himself said it') of anybody. And the DopT letter terms the petition as 'premature'. Does thismean his right to to seek sanction has not ripened yet? And did thesanctioning authority know at the time of filing of the petition that there will bea CBI probe? We are on alleged inaction and silence. The outcome of the CBIinquiry is totally outside his control. This what is worrying us. Can some one'slegal right be asked to wait?" Attempts by Subramaniam to divert focus from the word "premature" bysaying that it just meant to convey that a decision on the petition was being

deferred failed to convince the bench. It said: "When the letter comes from thehighest authority, the language is carefully used."