Just a week after DMK Rajya Sabha member Tiruchi Siva shot off a letter to the Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on 2G spectrum allocation, P.C.Chacko, terming his decision of not letting former Telecom Minister A Raja appear before the panel as “unilateral” and “against parliamentary convention”, BJP leader and member of the panel Yashwant Sinha has written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on April 1 asking the Prime Minister to appear before the panel and direct PC Chacko to allow Raja to do the same.
In his letter dated April 1 to the Prime Minister, Sinha has said he should advise Finance Minister P.Chidambaram as well to appear before the JPC. Raising questions about the manner in which the JPC has been functioning, Sinha wrote, “You had publicly offered to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to enable it to reach the right conclusion. You had not made a similar offer to the JPC though many members of the panel have demanded that you appear.”
Also citing Raja’s communication to the JPC, which is in the public domain, Sinha said a former Telecom Minister has levelled a “serious allegation against the Finance Minister and you”. He then went on to advise that it would be in the Prime Minister’s “personal interest’ to “Clear” his name. “You may also suggest to the Finance Minister to make a similar offer and ask the chair man of the JPC to call Raja to depose before the JPC.” He added that any “hesitation” on the Prime Minister’s part can be construed as an attempt to “hide” facts.
Already CPI member of the JPC Gurudas Das Gupta, who is very active in the panel, had demanded that Raja should be allowed to testify before the panel. DMK Parliamentary Party leader T.R.Baalu had also vociferously made that demand.
With almost all MPs of the opposition parties in the JPC apprehensive of the outcome of the panel with its chairman reticent about permitting Raja to depose his version before the panel, we may expect an insipid, vacuous report, (sharply divided) with little substance or punch, to be delivered sometime in the future, unless of course this Parliament is dissolved in the interim period.
Two recent developments need to be noted. Former Telecom Minister A.Raja, the main accused in 2G case, has formally asked to depose before the panel. The JPC, in its wisdom, has denied his request- the chairman of the JPC has advised him to send a ‘written deposition’, if he so desired. (It has recently been reported that Raja indeed has sent a 15-page deposition in writing to the JPC) The ostensible reason why Raja cannot depose is that he is an accused in a criminal case, and that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for him to be ‘examined’ by the JPC. If that be so, is it ‘appropriate’ for the JPC to ‘examine’ all others involved in the allocation of spectrum and pricing of it like the Telecom Secretary, C&AG, the then Solicitor General et al., who had deposed before the court as witnesses? At other times, the ‘reason’ trotted out is that calling him as witness may entail asking all previous telecom ministers to depose before the JPC.
Both so-called ‘reasons’ appear to be hogwash. First, a Member of Parliament can always make a statement in Parliament, whether being an undertrial or not. Parliament and the judiciary are separate fora- there is no reason why an individual cannot engage or be engaged with both. Raja is not a convict- at present he is merely charge-sheeted. It is common practice that even convicts have interacted with Parliament and allowed to be present on special occasions. Former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian has opined that “Indeed, Raja can be examined under Section 313 of the CrPC by the trial court, with no reference to the proceedings in the JPC. Raja is squarely in the radar for the ‘2G scam’ –if earlier telecom ministers need to be called to provide information, so be it; they should be called. Indeed, Justice Shivraj V.Patil committee had recommended the extension of probe to spectrum allocations made during the previous NDA regime.
The Prime Minister and Finance Minister are not accused, nor are they charge-sheeted.- they are Members of Parliament with special knowledge and information on the 2G matter. It is utterly inconsistent to propagate the argument that Raja cannot be called to depose since he is an accused- however, Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram will not be called because they are not charge-sheeted! Indeed, the Prime Minister had earlier offered to appear before the JPC. It is astonishing that the three individuals who know most about the so-called ‘scam’, two of whom have offered to give their version of what happened, have not been asked to depose. The logic of Section 311 of the CrPC clearly applies- anyone who has information on the subject should be called to provide evidence. If the three are not called to provide information, there is the danger that the proceedings may be seen as a charade or farce.
Should not Parliament find out how such a ‘huge failure’, if it had happened, of government took place? The JPC may not be a court of law to award punishment to wrong-doers and enforce the law; it has, however, a large role to play. Its duty is to find out the circumstances under which such a ‘massive failure’ took place., how the system was ‘subverted’ – and make proposals how to improve the system. How can this task even start if there is refusal by the JPC to ascertain the basic facts from the people who know most about it? A refusal to look into the whole truth can be seen as a betrayal of the purpose for which it was set up.
Now information has recently emerged in the public domain that the details of all decisions, including those relating to policy and implementation, were known in the PMO, analysed there thoroughly, and that all concerned were in the loop. Similarly, a detailed internal government memo, mentioning the major developments relating to pricing etc., indeed going to the extent that “the then finance minister could have prevented the loss”, has been in existence.
The Prime Minister and the then finance minister along with Raja are in the best position to explain how the irregularities or ’scam’ occurred. Does the JPC see its role as uncovering the truth, or to cover up wrong-doings? After all, these three ‘directed’ the entire operation and not just one. In a recent separate court development, the chiefs of major telecom companies have been summoned to depose on the ground that they are presumed to have ‘directed’ the operations in their companies. And hence why should the JPC not permit Raja to depose before it and consequent to his deposition, if need be ask the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister also to depose, so that it is saved from the charge of facts swept under the carpet and truth not uncovered. r
In his letter dated April 1 to the Prime Minister, Sinha has said he should advise Finance Minister P.Chidambaram as well to appear before the JPC. Raising questions about the manner in which the JPC has been functioning, Sinha wrote, “You had publicly offered to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to enable it to reach the right conclusion. You had not made a similar offer to the JPC though many members of the panel have demanded that you appear.”
Also citing Raja’s communication to the JPC, which is in the public domain, Sinha said a former Telecom Minister has levelled a “serious allegation against the Finance Minister and you”. He then went on to advise that it would be in the Prime Minister’s “personal interest’ to “Clear” his name. “You may also suggest to the Finance Minister to make a similar offer and ask the chair man of the JPC to call Raja to depose before the JPC.” He added that any “hesitation” on the Prime Minister’s part can be construed as an attempt to “hide” facts.
Already CPI member of the JPC Gurudas Das Gupta, who is very active in the panel, had demanded that Raja should be allowed to testify before the panel. DMK Parliamentary Party leader T.R.Baalu had also vociferously made that demand.
With almost all MPs of the opposition parties in the JPC apprehensive of the outcome of the panel with its chairman reticent about permitting Raja to depose his version before the panel, we may expect an insipid, vacuous report, (sharply divided) with little substance or punch, to be delivered sometime in the future, unless of course this Parliament is dissolved in the interim period.
Two recent developments need to be noted. Former Telecom Minister A.Raja, the main accused in 2G case, has formally asked to depose before the panel. The JPC, in its wisdom, has denied his request- the chairman of the JPC has advised him to send a ‘written deposition’, if he so desired. (It has recently been reported that Raja indeed has sent a 15-page deposition in writing to the JPC) The ostensible reason why Raja cannot depose is that he is an accused in a criminal case, and that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for him to be ‘examined’ by the JPC. If that be so, is it ‘appropriate’ for the JPC to ‘examine’ all others involved in the allocation of spectrum and pricing of it like the Telecom Secretary, C&AG, the then Solicitor General et al., who had deposed before the court as witnesses? At other times, the ‘reason’ trotted out is that calling him as witness may entail asking all previous telecom ministers to depose before the JPC.
Both so-called ‘reasons’ appear to be hogwash. First, a Member of Parliament can always make a statement in Parliament, whether being an undertrial or not. Parliament and the judiciary are separate fora- there is no reason why an individual cannot engage or be engaged with both. Raja is not a convict- at present he is merely charge-sheeted. It is common practice that even convicts have interacted with Parliament and allowed to be present on special occasions. Former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian has opined that “Indeed, Raja can be examined under Section 313 of the CrPC by the trial court, with no reference to the proceedings in the JPC. Raja is squarely in the radar for the ‘2G scam’ –if earlier telecom ministers need to be called to provide information, so be it; they should be called. Indeed, Justice Shivraj V.Patil committee had recommended the extension of probe to spectrum allocations made during the previous NDA regime.
The Prime Minister and Finance Minister are not accused, nor are they charge-sheeted.- they are Members of Parliament with special knowledge and information on the 2G matter. It is utterly inconsistent to propagate the argument that Raja cannot be called to depose since he is an accused- however, Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram will not be called because they are not charge-sheeted! Indeed, the Prime Minister had earlier offered to appear before the JPC. It is astonishing that the three individuals who know most about the so-called ‘scam’, two of whom have offered to give their version of what happened, have not been asked to depose. The logic of Section 311 of the CrPC clearly applies- anyone who has information on the subject should be called to provide evidence. If the three are not called to provide information, there is the danger that the proceedings may be seen as a charade or farce.
Should not Parliament find out how such a ‘huge failure’, if it had happened, of government took place? The JPC may not be a court of law to award punishment to wrong-doers and enforce the law; it has, however, a large role to play. Its duty is to find out the circumstances under which such a ‘massive failure’ took place., how the system was ‘subverted’ – and make proposals how to improve the system. How can this task even start if there is refusal by the JPC to ascertain the basic facts from the people who know most about it? A refusal to look into the whole truth can be seen as a betrayal of the purpose for which it was set up.
Now information has recently emerged in the public domain that the details of all decisions, including those relating to policy and implementation, were known in the PMO, analysed there thoroughly, and that all concerned were in the loop. Similarly, a detailed internal government memo, mentioning the major developments relating to pricing etc., indeed going to the extent that “the then finance minister could have prevented the loss”, has been in existence.
The Prime Minister and the then finance minister along with Raja are in the best position to explain how the irregularities or ’scam’ occurred. Does the JPC see its role as uncovering the truth, or to cover up wrong-doings? After all, these three ‘directed’ the entire operation and not just one. In a recent separate court development, the chiefs of major telecom companies have been summoned to depose on the ground that they are presumed to have ‘directed’ the operations in their companies. And hence why should the JPC not permit Raja to depose before it and consequent to his deposition, if need be ask the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister also to depose, so that it is saved from the charge of facts swept under the carpet and truth not uncovered. r
No comments:
Post a Comment