The Central Government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the verdict in the allotment of 2G Spectrum case which had put the the PMO in a bad situation on the delay in granting permission to charge sheet a public servant. Government on Thursday moved the Supreme Court seeking review of 2G spectrum scam verdict, which held that sanction for prosecution of public servants can be sought even prior to filing of complaints. It contended that “the question of sanction gets attracted only at the stage of cognizance after filing of complaint.” The Centre sought review of the Supreme Court’s January 31 verdict which blamed the Prime Minister’s office (PMO) for sitting on the plea to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for granting sanction to prosecute former telecom minister A Raja in the 2G scam.

It is also reported that certain private companies are also filing petition against the order. The Supreme Court order has shocked the government and private players. Gradually they are trying to change the decision by appeal of various kinds to whitewash their misdeeds.

It is understood that the CBI today has registered a  case in connection with alleged irregularities in awarding BSNL’s WiMax franchise to a private firm, considered close to ex-Telecom Minister A Raja, and carried out searches across four cities.

Nine teams of CBI officials are reported to have conducted searches at  the residences of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) officers and the officers of Starnet, the alleged beneficiary which got the franchise,in Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Gurgaon as per CBI.

Full details are yet to be received about the search and its findings.

In a move which may adversely affect Home minister Chidambaram, Subramanian Sway, President Janata Party , has filed petition in the Supreme Court requesting direction to call Former Finance Minister Chidambaram on his role in the 2G scam. His plea is that Chidambaram is also equally responsible for the decisions taken in the 2G allotment. The present case is filed in appeal against the decision of the lower court dismissing his petition to bring Chidambaram as a witness in the case.

The Enforcement Directorate has registered a money laundering case against former Union Minister, Mr Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Mr Kalanidhi in connection with the 2G spectrum allocation case.

The case, registered on Tuesday under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), pertains to an alleged illegal gratification of about Rs 550 crore allegedly received by the Maran brothers in the Aircel-Maxis deal.

Mr Dayanidhi Maran, a former Union Telecom Minister, had quit from the Cabinet last year after allegations were made that he had favoured Malaysian firm Maxis over Aircel in grant of telecom licences in 2004-05.

Mr Maran had denied the allegations.

The CBI too is probing Mr Maran and his brother and Sun TV MD, Mr Kalanidhi, in connection with these allegations.

The agency is also investigating the case for alleged contraventions of foreign exchange rules in this deal as it registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), an equivalent of the FIR.

The agency has also registered another case in the 2G case, pertaining to the NDA regime and has named former telecom secretary, Mr Shyamal Ghosh, then deputy director-general, Mr J.R. Gupta, and few telecom companies for alleged irregularities in the grant of additional 2G spectrum.

(Courtsey : Business line)

Rebutting criticism that the 2G judgement was a case of judicial overreach, Justice A K Ganguly, who was on the two-member bench of the Supreme Court that cancelled 122 licences, today asserted that the courts can certainly scrutinise and strike down policy decisions which are unconstitutional. “Under our Constitution, judicial review is one of its basic features, and, in exercise of such judicial review, the Court can certainly scrutinise and even strike down policy decisions of the executive when such decisions are unconstitutional,” he said. Ganguly, who retired on Thursday last, was reacting to criticism by former Lok Sabha Speaker and noted lawyer Somnath Chatterjee that courts cannot interfere with executive policies and decisions, even by justifying that larger public interest is involved. “The criticism of Mr Chatterjee that Court cannot interfere with the executive policies and decisions even in larger public interest and, by doing so, the Court assumes that it is above the Constitution is really startling,” Justice Ganguly said in an article in a Kolkata newspaper (The Telegraph). Justice Ganguly said the right to criticise a judgement is virtually part of one’s freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution. “Justice, on principle, is also not a cloistered virtue but the basis of criticism at times becomes very interesting. The criticism of 2G judgements by Mr Somnath Chatterjee, ex-Speaker, the Lok Sabha, and a leading lawyer of this country, is equally interesting,” he said. Noting that he has the “greatest of respect” for Chatterjee, he said he can assure the former Speaker on behalf of the bench that the judgement was not delivered “either out of temptation or out of any desire to appropriate executive powers.” “The judgement was rendered in clear discharge of duty by the Court….This is the plainest duty of the court under the Constitution and in discharging such duties, Court does not act above the Constitution but acts in accordance with it,” he said. Recalling a few decisions taken by the country’s railway administration to dismiss a large number of employees who were on strike in 1970s, Justice Ganguly said Chatterjee challenged those decisions in Calcutta High Court on behalf of the employees. “As a junior lawyer, I along with other learned lawyers assisted him. I am sure Mr Chatterjee remembers that the Court interfered and many of the orders of the executive authorities taken as a policy decision were reversed and the employees got back their jobs,” he said in the article. (Courtsey : Ganashakti)

consequent to the historic judgement of the Supreme Court  cancelling the 122 illegal licences issued to 11 private telecom companies, the TRAI has prepared and issued a pre-consultation paper on the 2G Spectrum auction so that all the stake-holders can intimate their opinions in the matter.

In the meanwhile, although it was stated by Communications Minister Kapil Sibal that the judgement will be implemented by the government, today the AICC General Secretary Digvijay Singh has stated that the government may file review petition. let us see what is the decision of the government.

Among others, there will be the following two fall outs because of the SC case in 2G scam:

The incumbent operators will benefit

An immediate fall out of the Supreme Court judgement will be that the incumbent operators like Bharti Airtel, Reliance, BSNL etc. will benefit since the 7 crore  and odd subscribers of the companies whose licences have been cancelled would like to change their connections to the other operators. It is not much difficult now with the number portability as they can keep their original numbers.

Tariffs my go up

There is every reason that the tariffs may go up, especially because  of the new development connected with the reduction of profits due to  stiff competition. Bharti Airtel and Reliance have already decided to hike up the tariff. Other companies including BSNL are expected to follow suit.

JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF ASSOCIATIONS / UNIONS

OF BSNL EXECUTIVES & NON-EXECUTIVES

D-7, Telegraph   Place, Gole Market, New Delhi – 110 001

___________________________________________________________________________________________

2G – Historical Verdict of Supreme Court

 The Joint Action Committee of BSNL Associations and Unions of Executives and Non-Executives heartily welcomes the verdict of Supreme Court cancelling 122 2G Licences of 11 telecom companies which secured licences through illegal and irregular methods in 2008. The judgement has exposed the biggest corruption estimated at 1.76 Lakh crore by CAG.

The JAC has been continuously demanding the cancellation of these illegal licences, impose penalty on them and also book the corrupt politicians and government officers involved.

The telecom sector, after privatisation, has been witness to all kinds of corruptive practices, tax-evasion by showing less revenue, conversion of ISD/STDcalls in to local calls for avoiding taxes, and so on. The DOT as well as TRAI/TDSAT have been taking a soft stand on all these illegal activities and bailing out them, instead of taking strong measures to curb the corruptive practices.

In addition, the telecom PSUs, BSNL and MTNL has been the victims of these irregularities, since the private companies benefited while BSNL / MTNL have acted as per all rules and regulations paying taxes etc.

In order to implement the so-called ‘reforms’ and neo-liberal policies, the government has been acting on a pro-private and anti PSU line, which has been clearly exposed now.

The JAC demands the government to have a fresh look on all the earlier irregular transactions in the telecom sector and introduce transparent and pro-people line, instead of granting undue favour to theMNCs and corporates in the telecom sector.

The connections provided by some of the companies whose licences have been cancelled are given below:

1. Uninor (Telenor)                       363.06 lakh

2. Siestama Shyam                        150.06 lakh

3. Videocon                                      54.42  lakh

4. S.Tel                                              35.49 lakh

5. Loop                                              32.36 lakh

6. Etisalat                                         16.70 lakh

Some licences of Tata and Idea are cancelled. But they had earlier licences also. Hence how much their connections will be affected can not be easily mentioned. Idea has got 1063.81 lakh  and Tata 834.92 lakh connections.  It can be said that about 5 crore to 10 crore connections may be effected. It is a crucial time for BSNL to increase its connections.

V.A.N.Namboodiri, Convener, JAC

The Supreme Court will tomorrow pronounce its judgements on the petitions seeking a direction for a probe into the alleged role of Home Minister P Chidambaram in 2G spectrum scam and for cancellation of 122 radiowave licences granted during the tenure of A Raja as Telecom Minister. The judgements will be pronounced by a bench comprising justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly on the plea for probe against Chidambaram and for cancellation of licences of spectrum on October 10 and March 17 respectively last year. The unanimous verdicts on both the petitions would be pronounced by Justice Singhvi. Since Justice Ganguly is retiring tomorrow, he will be sitting in a bench headed by Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia. The petitions on both the issues were filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy. (Courtsey: Ganashakti)

Setting aside the Delhi High Court judgement on sanction of prosecution in 2G case, the Supreme Court today held that filing of a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right of a citizen and the competent authority should take a decision on giving the sanction within a time frame. If the sanction is not given within four months then it is deemed to have been granted, the two judge bench of the apex court held in a case filed by Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy seeking a direction to the Prime Minister for sanction to prosecute the then Telecom Minister A Raja. The bench comprising justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly held that Swamy had the locus standi to seek sanction for Raja’s prosecution. It said sanction should be granted within a time frame and the competent authority shall take action in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the Vineet Narain case of 1996. Justice Ganguly, who wrote a separate judgement, agreed with Justice Singhvi and said sanction would be deemed to be granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a period of four months. The bench said that right to file a complaint against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right. The bench said it was not accepting certain submissions made by the Attorney General in defending the stand of Prime Minister’s Office. The court said it was not declaring as ultra vires the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The apex court had reserved its judgement on November 24, 2010 on the petition filed by Swamy alleging that there was delay in taking action on his plea seeking sanction to prosecute Raja. Swamy, who had made the Prime Minister a party in the case, had initially sought a direction to the Prime Minister to take decision on sanction to prosecute Raja but later on he sought framing of guidelines on the issue as his plea became infructuous with the resignation of the DMK leader as telecom minister on November 14, 2010. He had alleged that there was an “inordinate delay” on part of the prime minister in taking a decision on his plea for grant of sanction to prosecute Raja in the scam and his plea was neither allowed not rejected for over 16 months. The PMO had, however, refuted all the allegations and filed an affidavit before the apex court maintaining that the request for sanction for prosecution of Raja was considered by the prime minister and that he was advised that evidence collected by CBI was necessary before taking a decision. The government said as the CBI probe was going on it was necessary to wait for its completion before taking any decision on granting sanction. Swamy had approached the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court judgement that had refused to pass any direction to the prime minister for taking decision on sanction. (Courtsey: Ganashakti)