The government on Monday told the Supreme Court that “auction cannot be the only permissible method for disposal of natural resources” and a uniform policy on their distribution is “neither practical nor can it subserve the common good”.
The Centre also asserted that the allocation of natural resources is a policy matter and beyond the purview of judicial review.
The submissions of the government came in response to the questions framed by the apex court on Presidential Reference moved by it (government) for its opinion on issues arising out of its 2G spectrum allocation judgement including whether auctioning of natural resources across all sectors is mandatory.
Supporting the policy of first-come-first-served, the government said, “Ultimately the method of allocation of natural resources, apart from being governed by the principles of fairness and transparency, should also take into account the dynamic concept of public interest which also includes within its ambit the larger economic perspective and not merely financial gain.”
Further, it said the desirability to have fairness and transparency in state auction does not lead to the conclusion that “auction is the only way” in which one can proceed further.
“The disposal and distribution of natural resources has to be made in accordance with the sector specific requirement of each natural resource. The method of distribution of natural resource has to take into account the nature of natural resource and economic policy underlying the effective utilisation of such resource,” the Centre said.
Keywords: spectrum allocation, 2G case, Presidential reference
The government has been deep in trouble in the matter of spectrum allocation. It seems to be keen to get even deeper into the mess. A suicidal tendency indeed!
Although the entire telecom sector is under a cloud due to the 2G spectrum mess remaining unresolved as on date, one can but agree this time with the contention of the government that all natural resources cannot be auctioned purely on the basis of maximising financial gain but rather it can be a subject matter of government policy directed by national security and public interest depending upon the type of natural resource in question. The supreme courts contention if upheld even after presidential review petition would open the pandora's box and the danger of all of the nation's natural resources either getting controlled by wholly owned subsidiary of hostile foreign nations as also pose potent danger of internal unrest - for example: if water bodies, the most important natural asset of the nation has to be auctioned to highest bidding private player imagine what one has to pay for a glass of water!!! - And who can guarantee that every one will have a drop to drink?
This Congress will ruin our Country ....Spoiling every sectors even trying to mitigate IIT quality....Wake up country men..... Center Government should listen Supreme Court order .
In case Courts decide policy framing ,what role Governments will play.? If Financial gain is the only criterion then what is the difference between a democratic Government, which is required to be " For the People, By the people and of the people"?. Policies are to be communsurate with the people's expectations and for this Governments are supposed to be accountable to the People and not to the Courts in case of real democratic Governments. Courts are supposed to see that Procedures laid down for implementation of Policies are fair and complete transparency is observed while implementing the policies and procedures made and not to favour or under fear. If Governments are to be directed by Courts in framing policies, People need not elect the Governments. Because In that case Governments may not be able to frame policies for the betterment of People.
Supreme Court cannot dictate Govt in policy matter.It has see that any particular action of Govt has been violative of Law or Constitution.National treasure-how it will be distributed or given away is a matter for Govt to decide to the best interest of the country.Everything cannot be under the scanner of apex court otherwise it will be like disaster which Pakistan is witnessing.
"the dynamic concept of public interest which also includes within its ambit the larger economic perspective and not merely financial gain." Can anybody explain this to me in plain English? Obfuscation, delays,reverse logic... so many weapons in the arsenal for the Government to NOT act or act in a particular way, that would only serve certain people. In this case, can the DoT spell out what are the other ways than auction that would result in a fair distribution of natural resources? Certainly 'first come first served ' is not one of these.Are we talking of doling out food to hungry poor people here ?
Please Email the Editor