The former Telecom Minister, A. Raja, on Tuesday strongly opposed in the Supreme Court any direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation for a further probe against Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram for his alleged role in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, saying that any such probe would delay the hearing of the bail applications of the accused.
Senior counsel Sushil Kumar, appearing for Mr. Raja, submitted before a Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly that the CBI was suppressing the facts. He said the CBI had told the special court that investigation, insofar as the role of his client and other accused in the case was concerned, had been completed and, as a result, arguments on the framing of charges were going on. However, the agency had been telling the Supreme Court that investigation was still pending and that the monitoring could go on.
“We want to know the correct position. I want to know the status of the probe, whether it is still on, or has been completed.” Though the special court was to pronounce orders on September 15 on framing of charges, it could not do so, he said.
“If the probe is complete then the trial must begin in the case. Find out a way for us. Kindly recall your order [that bail petitions can be heard after framing of charges] and allow us to apply for bail. If further investigation is ordered, it will prejudice our chances of bail as the process will be delayed.”
He said the CBI had slapped additional charges of ‘breach of trust' against the accused on Monday and that any decision on further investigation based on Janta Party president Subramanian Swamy's complaint should be left to the special court. When counsel sought clarification and wanted a direction for the recall of the earlier order that bail should be considered only after framing of charges, the Bench said he could seek appropriate remedy elsewhere. Mr. Kumar alleged that although the CBI had seized 45,000 pages of documents on the very second day since the investigation began, these were not given to the accused.
Earlier, senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, took exception to the former Finance Minister and BJP leader Yashwant Sinha's statement that “the CBI's defence of Mr. Chidambaram was laughable”. He said: “Mr. Chidambaram was my junior 40 years ago. I am defending the CBI [and not Mr. Chidambaram], which is accused of not being honest in its investigation.” Mr. Venugopal referred to various statements being made in the media and said: “Everybody is having a field day.”
Senior counsel P.P. Rao blamed the media for holding Mr. Chidambaram guilty. “While the Government of India will not allow anyone found guilty after due process of law to go scot-free, this type of absolute freedom of speech and media trial is not conducive for fair trial.”
Mr. Rao reiterated that once the trial court had started exercising its jurisdiction after taking cognisance of the charge sheet, any further monitoring by the Supreme Court would amount to monitoring the trial itself, which was not permissible in law. Pointing out that Dr. Swamy had already approached the trial court with a complaint against Mr. Chidambaram, Mr. Rao said the trial court had the power not only to issue summonses to anyone as witness and examine the complainant, but also issue summonses for documents to be produced. Arguments will continue on Wednesday.
