While the CBI in a fresh status report to the Supreme Court indicated that 63 persons, including CEOs of at least 10 telecom companies, have come under its probe into the 2G scam case, the attorney-general countered the charge that he had in his legal opinion cleared the allotment of 2G spectrum by former communications minister A. Raja.
The CBI’s special counsel, K.K. Venugopal, who submitted a fresh progress report in a sealed cover before a bench comprising Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, said “63 persons, including promoters and CEOs of 10 companies, have come under probe by the agency”.
While perusing the CBI’s status report, the top court allowed the Centre and the Delhi high court 10 days to take a final decision on setting up a special court to try the high and mighty in the case. The agency has promised to file a chargesheet by March 31.
Additional solicitor-general Indira Jaisingh, appearing for the Centre, said the government was very keen to constitute a special court, as desired by the apex court, for a speedy trial.
“The matter is under consideration,” she said, adding that law minister Veerappa Moily has already written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi HC on the issue and a response from the Chief Justice is expected within 10 days. In view of her statement, the top court deferred the hearing on the issue of a special court to March 15.
Meanwhile, attorney-general Goolam E. Vahanvati denied the allegation that he had given legal opinion to Mr A. Raja on a particular line on allotment of 2G spectrum. The AG said he only had put up a “four-line note” suggesting that a “transparent” procedure be followed and that he should not be held responsible for any conditions attached to the allotment of 2G spectrum later. “No opinion was sought from me. There is only a four-line note of mine,” the AG said, adding he had only suggested that there should be “transparency”.
“If there were more applications inter-se seniority will be decided by the date of the application,” Mr Vahanvati said, explaining the contents of his note. “If it (allotment of 2G) had been made compliant with conditions (later, by Mr Raja) it is a completely different ball game,” the AG asserted.
The AG was apparently responding to a petition filed by former law minister and Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking to keep him away from the case as he alleged that Mr Vahanvati had given Mr Raja legal opinion on allotment of 2G spectrum.
The top court at the same time directed DoT to produce its letters of March 5, 2010 ordering cancellation of the licence of STel, which had filed a case in the Delhi HC against the government accusing Mr Raja of “irregularities” in allotment of 2G spectrum, and another letter of April 16, 2010 revoking the cancellation order after STel had agreed to withdraw from contesting the case in appeal in the Supreme Court.
The SC sought to peruse the letters after the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan, alleged that DoT, under Mr Raja, resorted to “intimidation tactics” against STel when it had highlighted irregularities in 2G spectrum allocation through court proceedings.
Mr Bhushan and Mr Swamy had sought cancellation of 2G licences on almost identical grounds, which include advancing the cut-off date, violation of principle of equality under Article 14 by excluding 343 companies from the race, manipulation of the first-come-first-serve policy, arbitrariness in picking and choosing applicants, violation of Trai guidelines, and, above all, massive corruption coming to light in the CBI probe.
Meanwhile, the SC cautioned against making baseless allegations against any person and said it would take serious view of such attempts and not entertain any oral comments aimed at “tarnishing the reputation” of anyone. The court said it would only look into allegations mentioned in affidavits, and even cautioned the media that it should be careful in reporting charges just thrown up in the air.