“The highest form of freedom carries with it the
greatest measure of discipline and humility”
- Mahatma Gandhi
In
our country where ‘freedom’ means for
majority of citizens nothing but freedom for starvation, deprivations and
sufferings, the most sensitive and touchy of the Constitutional rights to
freedom, as a class are the Media. In the last few days there had been an
uproar about ‘Violation of Constitutional right to freedom of speech and
expression’ and ‘attempts to gag the media.’
The Union Cabinet on October 7, cleared a proposal by
the I & B Ministry by which a television channel found guilty of violating
the terms and conditions of permission including violations of the programme
and advertisement code on five occasions or more, the ministry may decline to
renew the permission of such television channels. Immediately broadcasters and
civil society activists (another class of super citizens) were up in arms
against ‘government’s attempt to gag the media’ and the apex body of news
broadcasters, News Broadcasters Association strongly criticized the ‘5- clause
violation’ calling it ‘arbitrary, unfair, illegal and unconstitutional.’ In a
statement the NBA said the government decision was ‘a direct assault on the
self-regulatory regime put in place by broadcasters. Such proposed step is
wholly retrograde and places broadcasters of the arbitrary mercy of the
ministry and is therefore a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of
speech and expression and will not be countenanced by the NBA.
In another development the Bombay High Court on
October 5 asked Times Global Broadcasting Company, which runs English news
channel ‘Times Now’, to deposit Rs.20 crore in the court over a defamation suit
filed against it by a former Supreme Court judge. A Pune district court had
ordered the company to pay Justice (retd) P.B.Sawant Rs.100 crore, in damages,
and the present appeal to the HC.
A Pune district court had ordered the channel to pay
retired Justice P B Sawant Rs.100 crore in damages after it wrongly aired his
picture in connection with a news relating to involvement of judges in
provident fund scam in Uttar Pradesh. Justice Sawant had sued the channel for
displaying his photo wrongly for about 15 seconds in the news report relating
to alleged involvement of some other judges. The channel maintained that it had
already apologised to Justice Sawant in its news scroll for five days in 2008.
Editors of leading news channels expressed concern
over the development. The Broadcast Editors Association (BEA) felt it has wide
ranging implications and decided to seek legal opinion since this issue has
implications for the entire body of TV journalists.
In India,
defamation is an offence punishable under section 500 of the IPC with
imprisonment for a period of 2 years and/ or fine. Unless the defendant, who in
many cases happens to be a journalist, is able to prove that his actions fall
under one of the 10 exceptions provided in Section 499 of IPC, he goes behind
the bars. Jayalalitha government’s intolerance to adverse media reports
resulted in widespread misuse of these criminal provisions in 2003-04. Sec 66A
of the Information Technology Act, 2000 makes defamation through internet and
other electronic means punishable with 3 years’ imprisonment and/ or fine. It
is this section which is used against bloggers.
Ironically while Sec 500 of IPC is criticized as an archaic, draconian
and a legacy of British Raj for treating defamation as a criminal offence, even
the IT Act enacted by the Indian Government in 2000 provides for similar, in
fact worse jail sentence! Another irony is that while the main stream media
demands deletion of Sec 499-502 of IPC, it does not mind using the IT Act to
sue bloggers. For example when Chyetanya Kunte, a blogger criticized NDTV’s
coverage of 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai as shoddy journalism little did he
expect a defamation notice from Barkha Dutt.
While there is a case for decriminalizing defamation
and codifying the civil law relating to it, it is imperative to strike a right
balance between ensuring freedom of speech to media and offering sufficient,
meaningful protection to the likely victims of defamation. Otherwise it could
result in miscarriage of justice to the victim.
In 2007 Live India channel conducted a sting
operation against Uma Khurana, a school teacher in Delhi and alleged that she forced her
students into prostitution. The sting operation turned out to be a fake. She
had to take the channel to court. The channel was banned temporarily. The case
was settled out of court within a year. Pure civil action sans recourse to
Indian Penal Code may not, perhaps have forced the Channel to agree for such an
early out of court settlement.
Also while media unequivocally condemns defamation
cases being foisted against it, it would like to retain the right to sue
others. The Hindu, for example argued in 2004 when it faced a deluge of
defamation cases from the Tamil Nadu government that the defamation law
violated the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 and as such was ultra
vires the Constitution. But when Archana Shukla broke the story of Hindu’s
Board Room battles in March, 2010, N Ram, the erstwhile champion of freedom of
speech did not have any qualms in slapping a defamation notice on her and the
Indian Express!
It appears that media, at least some prominent
personalities of media would like to view defamation differently when it is
their right. Needless to say that media has to be able to get over this obvious
inconsistency in its thinking.
Softening of the defamation laws will place huge
moral responsibility on the media. Media would be required to exercise due
restraint in its reporting. In the 24x7 news coverage where intrusive coverage
secures the Channel a place ahead of competition, if media loses the restraint,
it will be a serious disservice to the freedom guaranteed by Article 19.
Freedom and responsibility/ accountability are
directly proportional and those claiming freedom as a constitutional right
should be above average common man in resisting human tendency for misuse than
use. There are number of films showing
the plight of hapless victims of misuse of power by politicians, police and
even judiciary and in the same breath narrating the agony of the victims of
misuse of freedom of press, which also exalts the undeserving (paid news saga
causing blushes for Big Media, for instance).
Never before the last one year, the brazen collective
misuse of freedom of Media was witnessed in the country, and perhaps in the
world. In the fit and fury provoked in reporting ‘spectrum case’ and the frenzy
generated in reporting anti-corruption movement, what seems to have gone
largely unnoticed is that the institutions that constitute the core of our
democratic governance structure have taken the battering. Another fallout of
the run up to the campaign, as also its culmination, has been the emergence of
a mindset that has made many entities, including the electronic media and some
of the constitutional watchdogs don the robes of crusaders and activists.
The three entities that have undermined the major
institutions of governance in the recent past are sections of ‘civil society’
at least one constitutional watchdog and the media, more vociferously the
electronic media. The methods and rhetoric adopted by the media smack of
arrogance and reflects the lack of faith in parliamentary democracy. The
electronic media has hurt the prestige of the government and dignity and
personal liberties of many persons, the most. The activism of 24/7 coverage, to
the extent it is independently reporting events that are happening, it is
performing it rightful duty. But if the print media is driven by market, the
electronic media the TRP ratings. By reaching millions of homes, they certainly
exercise major influence over the lives of people, which should bring with it a
lot of responsibility and accountability and the need for objectivity and
restraint. Unfortunately the exercise of freedom of media, at least in the last
one year, seems to be inversely proportional to responsibility, accountability,
objectivity and restraint. These virtues are not just for preaching but also
for practicing.
Lying can be done different ways – deliberately
making a false statement, covering up the truth, and partially reporting
affairs. As far as the spectrum case is concerned, the Media resorted to all
the three methods in the systematic campaign.
In the case of 2G spectrum allocation, the media, ab
initio, had been giving a totally distorted version right from the nomenclature
they had adhered to. How did ‘presumptive loss’ figures floated by the CAG,
which according to its own report was ‘debatable’, became ‘scam’? The
fundamental of jurisprudence that ‘you are innocent until proven guilty’, has
been reversed by the media and systematically and wantonly propagated unmindful
of the calumny they cause to so many persons who could ultimately prove their
innocence, that it is firmly embedded in the minds of people, right from
laypersons to the highest authorities.
The justices of the Supreme Court Bench hearing the case, had objected
to a report of the CBI submitted to the court mentioning ‘alleged 2G scam’ and
had asked ‘what is alleged?’ And when present Communication Minister Kapil
Sibal made a statement in Parliament that the loss in spectrum allocation was
‘nil’, the court pulled him up and asked him to behave with ‘sound sense of
responsibility’!
And the CAG report shows four different ‘presumptive’
loss figures from Rs.35,000 crore to Rs.1,76,000 crore. In politics, the
opposition parties will naturally get hold of the highest figures for
embarrassing the ruling party. But why did the media as a whole, from day one
stick to the highest figure, knowing very well that auctioning method was not
at all in the 2G scenario? Is it objective and fair reporting?
Is it not because of the collective guilty-conscience
of the entire media, that the news of the original CAG audit figure of loss
spectrum in allocation was only Rs.2,500 crore which was finally altered and
manipulated as Rs.1,76,000 crore, exposing a conflict with the audit authority,
was totally gagged and suppressed by the print and electronic media? That
revelation was also obtained through RTI. While the entire media chased PM and
FM upto Washington
to get their comments on another RTI ‘revelation’ of inter-ministerial difference, and hours of
discussions were conducted and pages of articles and columns were published on
that subject, why the very news of inter-CAG differences was totally
suppressed? Do we really have Free Media in our country?
Whether loss or scam, loss to the government should
correspondingly have gains for companies and consideration in the form of graft
for the minister and officials. The investigation both by the CBI and Media so
far could not establish any sudden jump in the profits of any telecom companies
and graft for anybody. The SC Bench hearing the case says, ‘the 2G scam put all
other scams to shame’ and the media telling ‘mother of all scams’.
If It is a scam that benefited somebody, who are
they? It is a matter of common sense that had the telecom companies were made
to pay Rs.1,76,000 crore more for spectrum, they would have collected the
amount from consumers through mobiles use charges. That is the charges would
have skyrocketed. Nobody could deny that mobile charges had come down to a
great extent in the last five years and there is hectic competitive bid among mobile-providers
to attract customers by offering packages. Do all these mean, if it is a scam,
that all the 80 crore mobile using people are beneficiaries of the scam and
hence criminally culpable?
All readers of newspapers and journals and viewers of
television channels and journalists are mobile-users. Far from fulfilling its
fundamental responsibilities towards society with fair, comprehensive and
impartial coverage of news, have not the media breached the trust of the
reading and viewing public and damaged the foundation of one of the strong
pillars of democracy and have not they betrayed the interests of their own
readers and viewers and making them gullible to their misinformation and disinformation?
By rejecting the contentions of the loss by the
minister and authority for Telecom TRAI, which is technically unassailable and
autonomous authority for spectrum and related matters, do the Media claim that
they are super-authorities? The CBI seems to be caught between the devil and
deep sea and attempting to cut the foot (their case) to suit the size of the
footwear.
CPM leader Brinda Karat commenting on Spectrum ‘scam’
said that, “like the peels of onion, scams relating to the 2G spectrum have
been surfacing one after the other.” Though she seemed to have thoughtlessly
used the analogy, given her party’s stand, that is turning out to be the
reality. With every peel the spectrum case faltering, it is turning out to be
onion – nothing at last. Thanthai Periyar used to be dismissive of stupid ideas
calling them contemptuously as bt§fha« (onion). The ‘spectrum scam’ is nothing
but onion. But all are set forth chasing the mythological figure of Rs.1,76,000
crore!
The following observations made by the Bench
consisting of Judges Singhvi and Ganguly hearing the Supreme Court are left to
the people to decide:
The Supreme Court asked some
questions about the lengthy delay on the part of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
in taking a decision on a plea for sanction of prosecution of former Telecom
Minister A Raja in the controversial 2G Spectrum allocation issue.
“Can the sanctioning
authority (Prime Minister in this case) sit on the complaint?” a bench of
Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly asked.
“The three months time for
grant of sanction laid by the Supreme Court is clear for fair and good
governance,” the Bench said.
“We find it is now more than
16 months. The sanctioning authority can say I am not inclined to give
sanction. But we find alleged inaction and silence troubling,” the Bench
observed,” adding “the sanctioning authority can say yes or no”.
“The judgement in the Vineet
Narain case has fixed certain time-limit for grant of sanction by the competent
authority. It is open to the sanctioning authority to refer (application) or
consult to Attorney General,” the Bench said.
“The comment from the
highest authority, when such letter comes from such highest authority, the
language should be very carefully used.
“The highest constitutional
authority can consult the Attorney General. Only the highest authority can
consult the Attorney General and not everybody. It is open to the sanctioning
authority to refer to the AG,” the Bench said adding the reply was coming not
from municipal authority.
The court said “we are
examining the Constitutional and legal validity of the reply. This is what is
troubling us. So you (SG) seek the record. We are adjourning the matter for Thursday.”
“We want to know whether
papers (of Swamy) were ever placed before the sanctioning authority,” the Bench
said.
“So what happened between
November 29, 2008 (the date on which a private complaint was made by Swamy) and
October 21, 2009 when the CBI registered the case against unknown officials of
Department of Telecom (DoT),” the Bench sought to know from the SG and asked
him to apprise it of the developments during the period.
(Nov. 16 2010)
The 2G scam has put ‘all
other scams to shame’ the Supreme Court said, brushing aside Centre’s argument
that it should not monitor the case.
“According to you it was not
a complaint but a letter. Whatever, it is, it was open to the sanctioning
authority to say the letter is not in proper form.”
“In this case if Dr Swamy’s
letter was not in the form of complaint you should have said it. Why shall he a
file a complaint at all when the court cannot take notice of the complaint,”
the Bench asked.
“Affidavit filed on behalf
of the sanctioning authority (prime minister) also did not say that that it was
not a complaint but a letter. Otherwise, you should have filed a one-paragraph
affidavit saying that the letter does not merit action as it was not in a
proper complaint form,” the Bench observed.
The Bench also brushed aside
the CBI’s plea that the apex Court should refrain from further monitoring the
case as the investigation had been taken up by CBI and other agencies.
“If you go into the monetary
aspect, this scam will put all other scams in the country into shame,” the
Bench observed.
(Nov.24, 2010)
“The court came close to
suggesting that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General was not
getting serious attention of the agency. “CAG enjoys the same position as the
President, Parliament and the Supreme Court in the Constitution. If such an
important constitutional authority gives a finding, then any reasonable officer
will question the minister and his secretary,” said the bench comprising
Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly. They said the report was replete about the
involvement of the former minister and his secretary in the case.
The SC also gave vent to its
anger over CBI’s decision not to name corporates involved in the case, and
instead opting for registering cases against unknown persons. “The Central
Vigilance Commission had named Unitech and Swan,” the court reminded the agency
and asked it to submit a report on the progress of investigations by Tuesday.
“CBI is showing us that it
has recorded 5,000 calls and seized 8,000 documents. This is beating around the
bush. Has the minister been examined? The CAG report is replete with his
involvement in the entire episode. Has this gentleman been questioned,” the
bench asked.
It also sought an
explanation from CBI for its decision to register the FIR against unknown
persons when CVC in its October 12, 2009, communication clearly mentioned the
names of Unitech and Swan. CVC had said that these two companies paid Rs 1,500
crore and Rs 1,600 crore, respectively, to get spectrum just two weeks after
selling their shares for Rs 12,000 crore. “Obviously, anybody would like to
know why the government did not want to earn this additional Rs 12,000 crore.
Prima facie, the amount does not appear small, CBI should have questioned their
officials,” the bench said.
To this the bench said that
it was ready to relieve the official right away. “The IO can go back and do his
job instead of being present during the hearing.”
(Nov. 26, 2010)
For the second day running,
Raja came in the line of fire with the apex court bench, comprising Justices GS
Singhvi and AK Ganguly, expressing serious reservations on the tone and tenor
of the former minister’s letter to the PM which contained words like “unfair,
discriminatory, capricious and arbitrary”. “Look at the command of his
language,” the court pointed out.
Further slamming Raja’s
attitude, the bench said: “When you address a letter to the highest executive,
the tenor of the language should be temperate. Here, it is a question of
attitude.”
“Raja first received opinion
of the law ministry which he overruled by saying it was out of context, then he
received a letter of PM on the same day asking him to wait and let me (PM) know
further action you (Raja) take. That is also ignored,” the court said.
“The letter of law ministry
for taking opinion of AG was ignored. The PM’s letter was ignored. Is this the
way the government functions,” the court asked.
Senior advocate T R
Andhyarujina, appearing for Raja, however, contended that the former telecom
minister never ignored the opinion of the law ministry or the advice of the
prime minister.
The bench shot back: “The
question is what led him to say that the law ministry’s opinion was out of
context.”
“Nothing could have happened
if you would have waited for two-three days after receiving the letter from the
prime minister,” the bench snapped.
“First, Raja is saying that
the opinion of law ministry is out of context and then not considering the
letter of the prime minister,” the bench said. Andhyarujina, who faced a volley
of questions, tried to impress upon the bench that Raja showed no disrespect to
the prime minister, who, he said, was entitled to know everything about the
allocation of spectrum.
“There was no question of
showing any disrespect to the prime minister. The prime minister is entitled to
know everything,” submitted Raja’s counsel.
The bench was not convinced.
“Prima facie, he has shown disrespect,” it observed. The apex court said Raja
should have written back to the law minister when the latter had expressed
certain reservations and there was no reason why he should have written a
letter to the prime minister.
“It is an inter-departmental
correspondence. The PM has no connection,” the bench observed.
(Dec 02, 2010)
The bench, comprising
justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly, expressed surprise over public sector
banks, including the country’s largest, SBI, providing loans of Rs 10,000 crore
to the licensees with the licence as the only asset.
“If it is true, it is
astonishing. It goes much far beyond what you are advancing,” the court said
when Prashant Bhushan, the lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the
Centre for Public Interest Litigation-an NGO-drew its attention to the bank
loans. The NGO wants the court to monitor the CBI investigation into the scam.
The judges appeared to be
critical of a decision by State Bank of India to lend Rs 2,500 crore to Uninor,
which is a joint venture between real estate major Unitech and Norway’s telecom
giant Telenor.
“This is an indication that
Rs 2,500 crore amount is given. It appears to be very substantial on the basis
of hypothecation of licenses only,” the court said.
The bench said, “A bank
which is the most premier bank of the country, the State Bank of India,
functioning under the Act of Parliament, lending Rs 10,000 crore. It is a
matter of such great public importance. It needs to be covered under the CBI
investigation.”
The justices also expressed
their preference for a “holistic probe” into the 2G spectrum allocation scam.
The court asked the agency
to figure out if it could extend its probe into the 2G spectrum allocation scam
to 2001, the year spectrum started to be allocated on the principle of
first-come-first served.
“The issue raised in the case
is not only limited to Rs.1.76 lakh crore but has a much wider compass. We
would not like to prejudice the probe. But what happened in 2001 needs to be
looked into. It is for the CBI to investigate and find out,” the bench said.
(Dec. 08, 2010)
Justice Singhvi told Mr.
Bhushan: “You rest assured that no person, irrespective of their chair and
wealth or their holding shares or holding high position, will confer any
immunity from the law. So far investigation in the case has made some progress
which would not have been possible in normal circumstances.”
Justice Singhvi referred to
the affidavit, which said: “A complaint was received by the Finance Minister on
November 16, 2009, inter alia alleging that Ms. Radia had, within a short span
of nine years, built up a business empire worth Rs.900 crore; that she was an
agent of foreign intelligence agencies; and that she was indulging in
anti-national activities. On this complaint it was directed that the matter
should be examined.”
Justice Singhvi told the
A-G: “We want to see the complaint.” He faulted a section of the media for
distorting the court proceedings by using catchy but inaccurate headlines such
as “SC raps Home Secretary.”
He said: “Till we decide,
nobody’s name should be dragged in the media.” The court would not remain a
mute spectator if the distortion continued.
Justice Ganguly observed: “If this continues, judges will stop asking
questions to counsel.”
(Dec.14, 2010)
“After considering
submission of the petitioner’s counsel (Prashant Bhushan) that since Trai has
sent a letter dated November 15, 2010, to secretary, DoT, which indicated that
many companies have not complied with the rollout obligation and not started
the services, we deem it fit to entertain the petition,” the bench said.
“So, now the CAG conclusions
are being doubted”, it said. “If the public exchequer and the government did
not suffer any loss at all, then we will ask the government. The CAG report is
not the government version, it cannot be.”
“We cannot take cognisance
of something (the minister’s press conference and statements trashing CAG)
which is not on record. We cannot go by media reports,” the bench said while
reacting to Sibal’s version of the extent of loss suffered by the exchequer.
Slamming the CAG’s
conclusions on the issue, Sibal had termed its estimate of a Rs.1,76,000-crore
loss to the government as “utterly erroneous”.
“Partial foundation of your
case was the order of the Delhi High Court, then the second order followed by
one by the Supreme Court. The order of the HC stands on its own and said the
action was wholly arbitrary.”
“Even the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC), in its communication to CBI asking it to register a case (in
the 2G spectrum allocation), says something is seriously wrong,” the bench
said, adding these concerns of constitutional authorities too found support in
the concerns expressed by the union finance secretary.
(Jan 10, 2011)
The Supreme Court has pulled
up Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal for making statements undermining the CAG
report on the 2G scam and asked him to behave with “some sense of
responsibility.”
“It is unfortunate. The
minister should behave with some sense of responsibility,” the bench of
Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said. “In our opinion, the CBI which is
conducting investigation into the 2G scam is expected to carry out the probe
without being influenced by the statement made by anybody, anywhere, including
the press,” the bench said.
(Jan 21, 2011)
The Supreme Court has issued
a notice to the Centre on a public interest litigation seeking disclosure of
all taped telephonic conversations of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia. A bench
comprising Justices GS Singhvi and SS Nijjar on Monday sought a response from
the government on why the tapes containing conversations between Radia and
various politicians, businessmen and journalists should not be made public. It
posted the matter for further hearing on February 2.
(Jan 24, 2011)
The resumption of the
hearing on the 2G spectrum scam on Thursday saw the Supreme Court favouring
expeditious trial. The bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly
asked Attorney General GE Vahanvati to explore with the Centre the possibility
of setting up a special court dealing exclusively with the 2G scam cases.
“There are a lot of persons
who think they are a law unto themselves. Law must catch them and it must be
done with a lot of expedition. Merely because he is in the list of Forbes
millionaires does not mean law will be lax,’’ the bench said at this stage. It
expressed its dissatisfaction over the CBI’s failure to nab the beneficiaries
of the scam. “But who are the beneficiaries ? There was a larger conspiracy and
the CBI must look into the ED’s first status report,’’ the bench said.
(Feb 10, 2011)
According to documents
submitted in SC, the home ministry had objected to DB Group promoter Balwa’s
presence in Etisalat. Taking this into account, the bench asked CBI to
investigate alleged breach of national security and submit a report along with
its fresh status report on March 15.
(Mar. 03, 2011)
It was referring to Shahid
Balwapromoted Etisalat DB Telecom and S-Tel . The home ministry had expressed
reservations against them. “There is a security angle to it and if it turns out
to be true then it means that security aspect has been compromised,” the court
said.
(Mar. 09, 2011)
Justice Singhvi told
counsel: “Prima facie there seems to be [a] violation of the law of the land.
Networks are vast. Their connections are in many countries.” He said: “Such reports deserve to be ignored
with contempt. The matter is serious. The court would protect everyone. It is
not proper to indulge in character assassination. The media must report the
proceedings properly.”
(Mar.15, 2011)
“Lines of investigation show
that it cannot be done in one chargesheet but many chargesheets have to be
filed,” the bench said. The court said it would look into a plea for forming a
committee to assist and monitor the probe into the case.
“Was the
first-come-first-served policy evolved by DoT or Trai? At what stage was it evolved
and what was the rationale behind it,” the bench asked. It also asked the
govt’s top law officer to explain the DoT secretary’s written statement dated
November 19, 2007, in which he had said that there was abundant spectrum
available for allotment, while Trai had been saying at that stage that the
spectrum was scarce.
“Why was Trai’s
recommendation not accepted by DoT? If DoT thought that it was not acceptable,
why was it not referred back to Trai for reconsideration,” the bench asked. It
said it will not go by reports of either Justice Shivraj Patil or the CAG.
(Mar 16, 2011)
While the investigation by
the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate had been fast-paced, the I-T department
was rather slow in its probe, the judge said. “Since these are cases of tax
evasion, the I-T department should have been quicker in its investigation. The
figures given in its status report are mind-boggling. These are not ordinary
cases which require ordinary process. We would like to have a detailed and
comprehensive report to be submitted by May 13.”
Justice Singhvi told
Bhushan: “You rest assured that no person, irrespective of their chair and
wealth or their holding shares or holding high position, will confer any
immunity from the law. So far investigation in the case has made some progress
which would not have been possible in normal circumstances.”
When Mr. Tanka told the
court that the probe had entered the “fifth layer” and the approach to the case
was not tardy, Justice Singhvi said: “We are not concerned about layers but
results.”
(May 05, 2011)
The bench also asked Janata
Party president Subramanian Swamy to limit his media briefings on his pleas
before the court relating to 2G scam soon after he said he had filed an
application seeking prosecution of home minister P Chidambaram in the
case.”When you are raising issues before this court, you should restrain from
having a parallel debate in the media,” the bench said.
(May 13, 2011)
“If newspapers can get the
report, then why do you have an objection in placing it before us?” the bench
asked.
“We want to know (whether)
what Trai said is correct or not. It (the Trai report) has come into public
domain. Is it not a public document?” the bench asked the additional solicitor
general, who insisted that “it is not a public document”.
On this, the court asked
Raval, “How (did) newspapers get the TRAI report? If it has been disclosed to
newspapers it cannot with withheld from us”.
(Sep. 06, 2011)
The Supreme Court questioned
the report of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on loss due to
2G spectrum allocation.
A Bench of Justices G.S.
Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, hearing applications filed by Janata Party president
Subramanian Swamy and advocate Prashant Bhushan, faulted the TRAI for its
communication to the Central Bureau of Investigation on the loss.
“We are really surprised
over the communication. It [TRAI] was created as an autonomous regulator by an
Act of Parliament. By the said communication, what it [TRAI] has done and
stated in recent days are a serious debatable issue.”
Mr. Venugopal, however, made
it clear that the CBI had not accepted the TRAI report. “It is true that
everybody is taking advantage of it.”
Justice Singhvi said,
“Everything should be left to the court to decide. Let the system work on its
own. We reserve our comments, lest they prejudice the case.”
The TRAI report, filed by
the CBI as mentioned in its charge sheet, said it was not possible to calculate
the exact loss to the exchequer due to the 2G spectrum allocation in 2008
during the tenure of A. Raja as Telecom Minister. The TRAI’s communication also
said it did not recommend auctioning of the 2G spectrum licence.
(Sep. 21, 2011)
Centre’s counsel and senior
advocate PP Rao said that CBI’s stand was surprising as it was contrary to the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments: Court monitoring of a
probe ends once CBI had filed a chargesheet against the accused.
At this Justice Singhvi,
speaking for the bench, said, “investigations in foreign countries, which has a
direct bearing with what has already been investigated is still continuing. It
is about how monies were brought in clandestinely from abroad and invested in
licences. So it cannot be said that investigations have come to an end.”
The court also reminded Rao
about the consent given by the Solicitor-General for monitoring the 2G case.
“Do you have instructions to withdraw that statement? Of course, we will
examine whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to monitor CBI probe in the
2G case,” said Justice Singhvi.
The Supreme Court rejected
the Centre’s plea that the apex court should not cross the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ to
pass order on the plea seeking probe against Home Minister P Chidambaram in 2G
scam.
“You are referring to
Lakshman Rekha. If Sita had not crossed the Lakshman Rekha then Ravana would
not have been killed. Lakshman Rekha was crossed and the demons were killed.
Lakshman Rekha is not so sacrosanct. People are fond of saying so,” a bench of
justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said.
The court’s remark came
after senior advocate P P Rao, appearing for the Centre, contended that “It is
well settled that the task of monitoring by the apex court would come to an end
the moment the charge sheet was filed and thereafter ordinary process of law
would take place.”
The bench then questioned
Rao on why the concept of court monitoring in cases has come into existence at
all.
The bench then said that it
has evolved because of emerging corruption and lack of proper investigation by
the agency in many cases. “Court monitoring is because of widespread malice. Is
it not so? These types of cases were not in past,” the bench said.
(Sep.22 2011)
During the course of the
hearing the bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly asked Swamy
about the fate of his complaints before the magistrate on the 2G scam. “Has it
been investigated. Has any chargesheet been filed on your complaint,” the court
asked.
Talking about CBI’s
response, the court said, “their best argument is that chargesheet is filed in
the case and hence no further investigations can be ordered”.
(Sep.28, 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment