M A I N   N E W S

2G Scam
Can’t blame PM for silence, AG tells SC
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

There was no provision in the anti-corruption law that mandated the Prime Minister to consider any such request made without filing a complaint with the judiciary. Till date, Dr Swamy has not filed a case in any competent court against Raja. GE Vahanvati, Attorney General

New Delhi, November 23
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could not be faulted for inaction or silence on Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy’s plea for permission to prosecute the then Telecom Minister, A Raja, for his alleged involvement in the 2G Spectrum scam, Attorney General GE Vahanvati contended in the Supreme Court today.

In fact, there was no provision in the anti-corruption law that mandated the Prime Minister to consider any such request made without filing a complaint with the judiciary, the AG argued before a Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly.

“Till date, Dr Swamy has not filed a case in any competent court against Raja,” Vahanvati said. Not even a complaint had been registered with the police.

As the competent authority responsible for giving the go-ahead for prosecution of any minister on the charge of corruption, the Prime Minister would come into the picture under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, only after a trial court had found prima facie evidence on the basis of material provided by the complainant, the AG said.

At this, the Bench wanted to know the relevance of invoking Section 19 after the judiciary was prima facie satisfied with the material for proceeding against a corrupt person. “Further, how could the administrative wing sit in judgment over the matter of sanction after the judiciary’s opinion on the existence of evidence? This was negation of the fundamental principle of rule of law,” it remarked.

The AG, however, said the relevance of Section 19 had not been challenged by Swamy, who only wanted a direction to the PM for according sanction to prosecute Raja. In view of this, the apex court should restrict itself to deciding whether the PM had violated the provisions under Section 19, a provision to protect bureaucrats from vexatious and frivolous complaints.

The Bench was somewhat not convinced fully. It was unfortunate that the “shield against vexatious complaints has become a sword,” the court remarked, implying that the sanctioning authorities were misusing the provision to stymie even genuine cases.

The apex court also asked the AG to provide details of how many requests for permission to proceed against corrupt officials were pending with the authorities and for how long.

Countering the AG’s contentions that a complaint should have been filed in a court before approaching the PM, Swamy said he had sought the sanction before going to the court as he wanted to save time. Even if he had gone to the court, ultimately he would have to knock at the doors of the PMO as the judiciary would take cognisance of the complaint only if there was sanction. There was nothing in the PCA that prevented him to approach the sanctioning authority first. The arguments would continue tomorrow.