The real motive of the Central government is coming in to open. The government which immediately after the Supreme Court judgment in 2G case stated that it will implement the order, has now filed an appeal to review the order. Although the main point it has raised that the judiciary can not take policy decisions which are in the realms of the government, another point it has raised is that the ‘First Come First Served’ policy  is correct  and had benefitted increase in teledensity all over the country. It is also stated that due to FCFS policy the government also has benefitted.

It comes to this. The government still feels that there has been no loss and the policy was correct. Why the government is taking this stand. There are many reasons, but two are very clear. NOt only A.Raja, but many more top leaders are involved. They had to be saved. Second, if auction process is implemented in allotment of all natural resources like water, land, mine etc. the leverage the government used to get by allotting them to their favourites / or for favours received can not be done.

Any way the government has taken its stand to defend its earlier policy and decisions. Let us wait for the arguments and the judgement.

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.