Even as the Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the 2G spectrum scam has put all other scams put together to shame, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the court that it was agreeable to the court monitoring the probe and status reports being filed in sealed cover.
A Bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly is hearing a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation for a CBI/SIT probe into the 2G spectrum scam.
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, initially opposed the monitoring of the investigation by the Supreme Court, saying the court could monitor the probe only if it was being done in violation of the statutory provisions or the probe was not being done in the right direction. He further argued that the court should not go into the merits of the accusations as it would prejudice the probe.
No ordinary scam
Justice Ganguly intervened and said: “This is not an ordinary scam. If you go into the monetary aspect, you cannot compare this with any other scam. Consider the magnitude and volume as highlighted by the CAG. This scam will put all other scams put together to shame.”
Then Mr. Venugopal said considering the magnitude of the case, the court could monitor the probe but it should make clear that by doing so, no prejudice would be caused as otherwise the officers would be put under tremendous pressure. He said the probe would be completed in three months and the final report ready by March 31, 2011. The CBI was ready to give the status reports in sealed cover, once in eight weeks or so.
However, when advocate Prashant Bhushan insisted that since important persons were involved, some impartial officers should be appointed by the court, Mr. Venugopal said: “If he insists on this, I am withdrawing the offer. I have made a fair offer which would answer his prayer in the petition. If he is not willing then I will argue the case on merits and I will demand dismissal of the petition as certain privileged documents were also being relied upon.”
Mr. Bhushan said that since the CBI probe was being monitored by the Central Vigilance Commission, headed by the former Telecom Secretary P.J. Thomas, a fair probe could not be expected.
Verdict reserved on Swamy's petition
Earlier, the Bench reserved verdict on the Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy's petition relating to sanction for prosecution of former Communications Minister, A. Raja, who has since resigned.
Before that Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati reiterated that the complaint sent by Dr. Swamy was not proper and consisted of mere letters.
However, Justice Singhvi was quick to point out that the Prime Minister did not take it lightly; obviously, he was concerned going by the comments he had sought.
When Mr. Vahanvati maintained that Dr. Swamy's letters could not be considered a complaint, Justice Ganguly observed: “The sanctioning authority could have said it in a reply. It was open to the sanctioning authority to say the letter is not in proper form but no such reply was sent.”
The Judge said: “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. You should have said it is a worthless paper.”
When the AG said that no sanction was required for the petitioner to file a complaint in the court, the condition precedent for the court to take cognisance of the complaint was to obtain sanction and at the stage of investigation or at the stage of filing of chargesheet, Justice Ganguly asked the AG “Why should he [Dr. Swamy] file a complaint at all when the court cannot take notice of the complaint.”
The Bench reserved verdict after asking the AG to furnish within a week the number of cases in which sanction was pending. Arguments will continue on Thursday.
