In its rejoinder to the Supreme Court notice on the presidential reference sent to the apex court by the UPA government in the wake of the 2G case judgment, NGO CPIL, the main petitioner, has accused the Centre of attempting to “overreach” the verdict in the garb of the reference raising the questions of law already decided.
The NGO in its response filed through its counsel Prashant Bhushan has pleaded the SC to reject the presidential reference citing its 1993 verdict in the Cauvery water dispute case in which it has been clearly laid down that the President could not use the “advisory jurisdiction” to seek the opinion of the apex court in four conditions. These conditions include; the advisory jurisdiction cannot be used to review a verdict, to appeal against a judgement, to question the correctness of a judgement and raise the same questions of law that have already been decided by the apex court.
“Despite such a clear enunciation of law, government has still opted to file the reference so that it can continue with its opaque, inefficient and corrupt system of allocation of the precious natural resources to big industries,” the NGO alleged.
In response to the key question about allocation of natural resources, which is the central focus in the Presidential reference, CPIL claimed that the 2G case verdict cancelling 122 spectrum licences had not been properly “appreciated” by the legal advisers of the government.
“The 2G judgment has never stated that every natural resource should be allocated through auction,” NGO’s affidavit stated.