After the Supreme Court agreed to consider the presidential reference in 2G case on merits, the attorney-general opened the arguments on behalf of the Centre on the issue, reiterating its stand that the “confusion” created by the verdict on the question of auctioning of natural resources needed to be clarified.
A-G Goolam E. Vahanvati cited several Supreme Court rulings in order to bring home his point that the top court could address the issue of any “confusion” arising in a verdict given by presidential reference made under Article 143. Stating that the government was not questioning the “correctness” of the 2G verdict given by a division bench on February 2 but only wanted the court to clarify whether a direction given in it that the “government is duty bound” to auction natural resources, would apply to all the natural resources, or it had a limited implication.
A five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia and Justices D.K. Jain, J.S. Khehar, Dipak Misra and Ranjan Gogoi, on Wednesday had agreed to hear the arguments on merits of the presidential reference and decide the same with the question whether the reference is maintainable or not.
Mr Vahanvati had earlier addressed the argument on the “maintainability” of the reference after 2G case petitioners — Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy — had raised questions on the very basis of the reference.