2G case: Swamy moves SC against trial court order on P Chidambaram

Janata Party chief Dr Subramanian Swamy, in his appeal, contended that the special CBI court erred in its order and alleged that the then finance minister P Chidambaram was equally culpable like Mr Raja as he also had a role in deciding the spectrum pricing and allowing telecom companies to offload shares to foreign firms

New Delhi: Janata Party chief Dr Subramanian Swamy on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the trial court order giving clean chit to home minister P Chidambaram in second generation (2G) spectrum allocation scam, saying that there is no doubt that the then telecom minister A Raja took the decision on spectrum allocation after consulting him, reports PTI.

Dr Swamy, in his appeal, contended that the special CBI court erred in its order and alleged that Mr Chidambaram was equally culpable like Mr Raja as he also had a role in deciding the spectrum pricing and allowing telecom companies to offload shares to foreign firms.

“In view of the certified copies brought on record which make it absolutely clear that while the respondent (Raja) may indeed not have consulted the officers of the finance ministry, there is no doubt that he certainly did consult the finance minister in regard to spectrum pricing at least up to the final decision in June 2008,” Dr Swamy said in his petition.

He said the evidence brought before the trial court was sufficient to show that Mr Chidambaram, as the then finance minister, had prima facie committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other criminal laws.

“The special judge erred in that, despite having made a definite and detailed finding based on his documentation, that Mr Chidambaram was party to two decisions, that is, keeping the spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by the two companies, nevertheless the judge held that these two acts are not per se criminal, and hence he rejected plea for making Mr Chidambaram, an accused in the trial of the 2G spectrum scam,” the petition said.

“Once the fact of Mr Chidambaram’s participation in these two crucial decisions is accepted (as has been done by the special judge) it became his duty to direct investigation into the role of Mr Chidambaram,” the petition said.

Dr Swamy’s plea was rejected on 4th February by the special CBI court, trying the 2G case, which had said Mr Chidambaram did not indulge in any criminal conspiracy or derive any pecuniary advantage in the decisions taken with Mr Raja.

The trial court had said that Mr Chidambaram, the finance minister at the time of controversial allocation of 2G spectrum in 2008, was only party to two decisions—keeping spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by two companies—which was “not per se criminal”.

The Supreme Court had on 2nd February left on the special court to decide the plea to try Mr Chidambaram in the case.

The trial court had rejected the private criminal complaint filed by Dr Swamy, saying it was without merit.

It said Dr Swamy could not bring evidence on record to show that Mr Chidambaram was acting with a ‘corrupt’ and ‘illegal’ motive and the case against him was distinguishable from other accused who are facing trial in the 2G case.




5 years ago



5 years ago

* Dr Swamy filed petition before trial court for making Chidambaram as co-accused in 2G scam, for establishing prime-facie whether Chidambaram had involved in crime or not, he submitted certain documents, which establishes Chidambaram is a party to decision in which govt. given radio waves licenses to certain private firm in 2008 with 2001 prices, policy adopted was first come first service basis, trial court judge O.P.Saini accepted the fact that Chidambaram is party to a govt. decision. As per CrPC next step shall be, he could have sought an investigation in to the matter, only after investigation, criminal culpability of Chidambaram if any could have been established, without investigation report dismissing the petition at this stage, on 4th February in 2012 is highly erroneous. Collecting the evidence is the job of investigating agency/prosecuting authority, not the duty of complainant, in this case prosecuting authority is Govt. of India, accused is Home Minister in Govt. of India. CrPC only empowers criminal investigating powers to police, in this case CBI, not to petitioner. The CBI u/s 161 CrPC has to record the statements of persons supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. In 2G scam case CBI not even recorded statement of Chidambaram u/s 161 CrPC. The same CBI had recorded statements of former Telecom Minister and former Finance Minister i.e. Arun Shorie and Jaswant Singh respectively. Both were Ministers before 2004, where as the crime occurred in 2008. Hence free and fair investigation by CBI shall only possible if P. Chidambaram steps down as Union Home Minister.
* In October 2011, Mr. Chidambaram told India Today magazine: “Even after the 121 letters of intent were issued on January 10, 2008, the Ministry of Finance continued to argue that auction was legally possible, explored alternatives to auctions in view of DoT's objections and suggested updating the entry fee, adopting one of two methods that would yield an additional Rs. 3,028 crore or Rs. 3,400 crore per licence which could be charged up front when the licensee applied for additional spectrum beyond the start-up spectrum. For a moment assume if Chidambaram is right, govt. would have got sum of Rs 4,11,400 crores as revenue. With above statement of Chidambaram proves beyond reasonable doubt that the CAG estimated loss of revenue i.e. Rs 1,76,379 crores right and conservative assessment. Judge Saini, in his February 4 Order, arrived to a conclusion that Chidambaram infact agreed with Raja not to revise or revisit the entry fee or spectrum charge as discovered in 2001. Judge Saini's conclusion supports that the Prime Minister, who, on February 24, 2011, told the Rajya Sabha that the two ministers had agreed on spectrum pricing. Therefore, there is indeed an agreement between Chidambaram and Raja. Judge Saini also finds that, Chidambaram was party to two decisions, that is keeping the spectrum prices at 2001 levels and dilution of equity by the two companies. The Supreme Court does not treat the Swan and Unitech transactions as mere equity dilution or capital infusion. Instead, it affirms that the Swan and Unitech transactions were windfall gains, stating: “This becomes clear from the fact that soon after obtaining the licences, some of the beneficiaries offloaded their stakes to others in the name of transfer of equity or infusion of fresh capital by foreign companies and thereby made huge profits.

Tax:Travails of a common man

Honest taxpayers suffer when any agency, whether SBI, LIC or UTI or whoever, that do not file...

Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access


Already A Subscriber?
Yearly Digital+Print Access


Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation
Loop seeks refund of license fee along with interest

“We will surrender the licence, against the DoT making a refund of licence fee of Rs1,454 crore with interest. All our performance and financial bank guarantees may be released,” MD and CEO Sandip Basu wrote to the prime minister last week

New Delhi: Loop Telecom, one of the several firms whose licence was cancelled by the Supreme Court early this month, has written to prime minister Manmohan Singh saying it will surrender the licence if the government refunds Rs1,454 crore fee along with interest, reports PTI.

The company while seeking to highlight that interests of Indian companies too should be protected along with foreign firms, made the proposal to avoid litigation.

“We will surrender the licence, against the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) making a refund of licence fee of Rs1,454 crore with interest. All our performance and financial bank guarantees may be released,” managing director and CEO Sandip Basu wrote to the prime minister on 17th February.

He said Loop Telecom has made investment in excess of Rs3,500 crore in its business.

Holding the government responsible for cancellation of licence by the apex court, Mr Basu said that Loop Telecom is entitled to refund of licence fee of Rs1,454 crore, compensation for additional investment already made till date (approximately Rs2,000 crore) and compensation for loss of profits and damages of reputation.

Mr Basu, however, said that Loop Telecom will not file a review petition or take any other proceedings for challenging the judgement of the Supreme Court that cancelled its licences.

He added that it will not seek any compensation of Rs2,000 crore already made, damages on account of wrongful actions of the government/DoT.

“DoT and us would agree that neither party has any claim against each other and withdraw all allegations and counter allegations against each other. The government/DoT would co-operate in filing a petition before the appropriate court for closing the criminal case,” Mr Basu said.

He has asked PM to take decision on his proposals before end of time limit for filing review petition.

“Since the limitation for filing the review petition is 30 days, a decision would be required prior to the end of the limitation period,” Mr Basu said.

Loop Telecom CEO said that government should protect investment made by Indians along in the same manner in which it is trying to protect investment made by foreign companies.

“We understand that the Government of India is considering evolving a policy to protect the investments of the international investors...

“While this effort is required ... it also has to be ensured that a policy which is evolved by the government is not only protecting the investments of foreign investors but also those of the Indian investors who have also invested under the very same government policy,” Mr Basu said.

The Supreme Court judgement that cancelled 122 second generation (2G) licences included 21 licences that were allotted to company in 2008.

Loop Telecom had submitted to apex court on 9 March 2011 that it was not interested in profiteering from mispriced allocation of spectrum and had offered to return licenses issued and re-auctioned so as to establish a fair market price for the spectrum.


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)