M A I N   N E W S

SC gives clean chit to PM, blames PMO for delay in 2G scam
Says decide on prosecuting the tainted in 4 months
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, January 31
The Supreme Court said today that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was not responsible for the long delay in prosecuting former Telecom Minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum scam. It directed the government to dispose of within three-four months pleas seeking permission to book corrupt ministers and officials.

The Prime Minister “is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers. Unfortunately, those who were expected to give proper advice to the PM and place full facts and legal position before him failed to do so,” a Bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly held.

Absolving the PM of any wrongdoing, the Bench clarified that, “We have no doubt that if PM had been apprised of the true, factual and legal position regarding the representation made by Swamy, he would have surely taken appropriate decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger for a period of more than one year.”

The Bench came out with the findings in a 63-page verdict on a petition filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy complaining that the PM took more than 16 months to take a decision on his request for permission to prosecute Raja for the 2G scam.

In the course of the SC hearing, the case had become partially infructuous following the resignation of Raja and his prosecution by the CBI. Nevertheless, the apex court went on to hear the case to give its ruling as to whether private individuals had the right to prosecute public servants on corruption charges which was normally done by the CBI.

Giving its verdict on this aspect, the SC said private individuals such as Swamy had the right to prosecute such ministers and officials. However, there was no need to allow Swamy in this case as the trial against Raja was already on, the Bench pointed out.

Dealing with the delay in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the Bench noted that Swamy had sent his representation against Raja to the PM on November 29, 2008. The matter was promptly placed before the PM just a day later -- on December 1. The PM directed the concerned officer to “examine and apprise him with the facts of the case.”

Surprisingly, instead of complying with the direction by the PM, the concerned officer sent the representation to the Department of Telecom headed by none other than Raja, the Bench noted. Seizing the opportunity, Raja sent a letter to Swamy, denying any irregularities in the allocation of 2G Spectrum in 2008 at 2001 prices without adopting the auction route that would have fetched prevalent market rate.

The official in the PMO then referred the matter to the Law Ministry for advice, though under the SC verdict in the Jain hawala/Vineet Narain case no detailed inquiry was necessary for deciding on such representations, the Bench noted.

Finally, on March 19, 2010, Secretary in the Personnel ministry sent a letter to Swamy stating that since the CBI had registered a case on October 21, 2009 against unknown officials “it would be premature to consider sanction for prosecution at that stage.”

Instead of doing all this, “in our view, the officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, were duty bound to apprise the PM about the seriousness of the allegations made by Swamy and the judgments of this court” in the Vineet Narain case as also the guidelines framed by the CVC in compliance with the SC verdicts, the Bench observed.

In the Vineet Narain case, the SC had ruled in 1998 that the “time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is required with the Attorney General (AG) or any other law officer in the AG’s office.”

This deadline was incorporated in the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the apex anti-corruption body, in May 2005.

“We deem it proper to observe that in future every competent authority shall take appropriate action on the presentation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained” in the Vineet Narain case and the CVC guidelines, the Bench ruled.