The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the CBI about why it has not so far interrogated former telecom minister A. Raja in the 2G spectrum scam case even though the CAG report was replete with his repeated actions bending policy on allotment of spectrum licences.

Brushing aside the CBI’s objection that the court should not hear detailed arguments based on the CAG’s report, a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly asked why the former telecom secretary, who held the office at the relevant time, was also not questioned.
The bench expressed surprise at how Mr Raja had changed the “first-come-first-serve” policy at the last moment, in 45 minutes, when the letters of intent (LoI) were issued to the applicant companies on January 10, 2008, by introducing a condition that the LoI would be given first to those who fulfilled the condition of submitting a bank draft of `1,600 crore licence fee and bank guarantees. “We think the involvement of these gentlemen (Raja and the telecom secretary) is replete with repeated actions, have these gentlemen been examined,” the bench asked.
While D.S. Mathur was telecom secretary till December 31, 2008, Sidharth Behura had succeeded him. Mr Mathur recently had gone on record to say that he “resisted” Mr Raja’s attempts to grant the licences without “equitable and transparent policy”.
“We are on a limited point that CAG under the Constitution has a very important position. If such an authority gives such a report, any reasonable person will question the involvement of the minister and the (telecom) secretary. You (CBI) have said that 8,000 documents have been examined and still you are beating around the bush. It (questioning Raja and the telecom secretary) was the minimum expected from the CBI,” the bench told senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing as its special counsel.
Hardening its stance on the question of whether CAG report should form the base for the argument, the bench told the CBI counsel that it was for the court to decide. “We are on specifics... the CAG is such an important functionary. After the revelation by such a body, there should have been some action,” the bench pointed out.
Mr Venugopal, who took over the case on Monday and had ever since been “resisting” a detailed hearing based on the CAG report and also on merit, said the agency had its “own set of methods of investigation” and would take appropriate action at an appropriate stage.
He offered to submit progress reports in sealed covers on a “day-to-day” basis to the court but insisted that it not consider the details from the CAG report at this stage. As he mentioned “corporate lobbyist” Niira Radia, the bench cut him short by saying, “We have not spoken about Niira Radia so far.”
Mr Venugopal pointed out that Mr Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the petitioner, the NGO Centre for PIL, had repeatedly referred to the name of Ms Radia, questioned by the ED on Wednesday.
The CBI had said in detail in its affidavit that it was examining her telephone conversations with politicians, businessmen and media people as recorded by the income-tax department. “Anyone, he or she, will not be spared,” the CBI counsel asserted, explaining that in such cases, where the proceeds of crime have to be traced, the investigation cannot not be carried out by traditional methods.
However, the bench refused to budge on the issue of the CAG report, saying, “That issue we have to decide.” “After hearing we will decide this. Every person has a right to address the court,” the bench said, allowing Mr Bhushan to base his arguments on the CAG report.
The court eventually passed a formal order taking the CAG report on record while allowing the CBI counsel to submit its status report in a “sealed cover” by November 30, when the hearing is to resume.
Earlier, during the pre-lunch hearing, the bench also questioned the CBI on why it had not named two companies — Unitech and Swan — in the FIR when the CVC had specifically referred them to the agency.