On 2 February 2012 – little over two years after the CBI registered FIR against unknown officials of the Department of Telecom, the Supreme Court cancelled 122 telecom licences and spectrum allocated to eight companies.
The Supreme Court held that the process of allocation was flawed. It further directed the government to allocate national resources through auction only.
The 2G spectrum judgment of the Supreme Court came in the backdrop of CAG report and probes by CBI and ED claiming that massive irregularities happened in awarding telecom licences.
A trial had begun in the 2G spectrum scam case in November 2011 in the special CBI court of Judge OP Saini. Five cases filed by the CBI and ED were being heard. Later, two cases were dropped and in rest of the cases, the special court today acquitted all the accused clearing them of charges of any wrongdoings.
WHAT DID CBI JUDGE RULE?
Pronouncing judgment in the 2G spectrum scam case, the CBI court in Delhi today acquitted all the accused in all the three cases, in a major shock to the CBI and the ED.
The judgment states, “There is no evidence on the record produced before the Court indicating any criminality in the acts allegedly committed by the accused persons relating to fixation of cut-off date, manipulation of first-come first-served policy, allocation of spectrum to dual technology applicants, ignoring ineligibility of STPL and Unitech group companies, non-revision of entry fee and transfer of Rs 200 crore to Kalaignar TV (P) Limited as illegal gratification.”
“The charge sheet…is based mainly on misreading, selective reading, non-reading and out of context reading of the official record,” the court said in its ruling.
HOW CBI FAILED
Chiding the CBI for a sloppy investigation, judge OP Saini wrote that the charge sheet “is based on some oral statements made by the witnesses during investigation, which the witnesses have not owned up in the witness box. Lastly if statements were made orally by the witnesses, the same were contrary to the official record and thus, not acceptable in law.”
The trial court found that “many facts record in the charge sheet are factually incorrect, like Finance Secretary strongly recommending revision of entry fee, deletion of a clause of draft LOI (letter of intent) by A Raja, recommendations of TRAI (Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India) for revision of entry fee…”
IN CONTRAST WITH SUPREME COURT VERDICT?
At the end the CBI judge termed the CBI charge sheet against A Raja, Kanimozhi and others as “well choreographed.” He wrote, “I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its well choreographed charge sheet.”
In effect, the CBI court today rejected that the 2G spectrum allocation led to any scam during UPA government.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court in its judgment had observed that 85 of 122 licences were given to ineligible companies. The Supreme Court had also held the allocation process was done in an arbitrary and unconstitutional manner.
Hon'ble Supreme Court had cancelled 122 licenses in 2012. Licences were sold like vegetables under "Corrupt Congress" on a First Come First Serve basis.
Shocking that the guilty have not been convicted. Appellate Courts will definitely correct the Legal error
— Gaurav Bhatia Sr Adv BJP गौरव भाटिया 🇮🇳 (@gauravbh) December 21, 2017
WHAT HAPPENS TO 122 LICENSES NOW?
When the Supreme Court ordered cancellation of 2G licences in 2012, the UPA government had considered it as judicial outreach in the realm of the executive. The UPA leaders called it infringement on the jurisdiction of the executive and went against the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
The UPA spokespersons questioned the judgment saying that policy making was the prerogative of the government of day emphasising that there was no malafide intent in awarding 2G licences. The trial court has concluded exactly the same five and a half years later.
The development leads to a pertinent question as to what will happen to the 122 licences that eight telecom companies secured in 2008 and which were later cancelled. Will the Supreme Court review its judgment if the affected parties file a petition before it in the light of trial court’s verdict?
3 comments