Union Minister of Home Affairs P. Chidambaram responds to the report “Chidambaram may not be out of 2G thicket yet,” that was published in The Hindu on February 16, 2012:
Your correspondent appears to have missed the crucial point that proceedings under section 200 of the CrPC are ex-parte proceedings. In proceedings under section 200 CrPC, at the initial stage, there is no opposite party or defendant. The Judge will examine the complainant and the evidence that the complainant may produce. Such evidence is usually selective, self-serving and only what may support the case of the complainant. That is what happened in this case too. Nevertheless, the Special Judge found no merit in the complaint and dismissed it. The observations in the order of the Special Judge must be understood in the context that the proceedings were ex-parte proceedings.
However, since your correspondent has interpreted the order of the Special Judge as well as some other documents, I wish to place a few facts so that the record will be complete.
The two acts attributed to me by the complainant were (i) allegedly agreeing to non-revision of the entry fee and (ii) allegedly permitting two companies to issue new shares to foreign investors. The relevant facts are as follows (and they are in the public domain):
(i) On the entry fee charged for the LoIs issued on 10.1.2008, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 2.2.2012 in WP No.423 of 2010 has concluded that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) ignored the “concerns raised from various quarters including the Prime Minister, Ministry of Finance and also some of its own officers.” The Supreme Court has also concluded that “as the Minister of C&IT was very much conscious of the fact that the Secretary, Finance had objected to the allocation of 2G spectrum at the rates fixed in 2001, he did not consult the Finance Minister or the officers of the Finance Ministry.” The Supreme Court has also noted that the meeting of the full Telecom Commission scheduled to be held on 9.1.2008 was postponed by the DoT and the LoIs were issued on 10.1.2008. Thus, it will be clear that the LoIs were issued on 10.1.2008 without the knowledge of the Ministry of Finance.
What happened after 10.1.2008 is a matter of record. After 10.1.2008, notes and discussion papers were exchanged between the Ministry of Finance and the DoT during January to April, 2008. These discussion papers reflect the consistent stand of the Ministry of Finance that auction was the best method to discover the price and it was legally possible to do so. However, DoT declined to accept this view. Hence, various alternatives were explored to raise additional revenue. The final discussion paper that was prepared by Secretary, Finance and Secretary, DoT was considered at a high-level meeting on 4.7.2008. Decisions taken at that meeting were the decisions of the government. One of the decisions was to revise and update the entry fee by adopting one of two methods (GDP growth rate or SBI PLR) and to charge the said amount upfront when the licencee applied for additional spectrum. This decision would apply to all licencees who had been allocated spectrum up to 31.3.2008, including the 122 licencees. The decisions are recorded in the minutes dated 6.7.2008. Therefore, there was never any “agreement” between the Minister of C&IT and me not to revise the entry fee. On the contrary, a decision was taken by government at the high-level meeting on 4.7.2008 to revise and update the entry fee.
(ii) Regarding issue of fresh shares by the two Indian companies to their foreign investors, the FDI policy allowed up to 49 per cent equity under the automatic route. The records will show that until I demitted office as Finance Minister on 30.11.2008, the position was that M/s. Telenor had subscribed to new shares amounting to 33.50 per cent of the equity of the Indian company through the automatic route and M/s. Etisalat had subscribed to new shares amounting to 44.73 per cent of the equity of the Indian company through the automatic route. The funds brought in by the foreign investors accrued to the companies and not to the promoters. There was no question of the Finance Minister “permitting” the Indian companies to issue fresh shares to their foreign investors. No such permission was required and no such permission was given.
Shalini Singh, Deputy Editor, The Hindu, responds:
(i) I am aware that Section 200 CrPC proceedings are ex parte and no contrary claim has been made by me. The article compares Judge Saini's order with Mr. Chidambaram's public statements (obviously made outside the court) and notes how Judge Saini's observation that Mr. Chidambaram “agreed with Raja not to revise or revisit the entry fee or spectrum charge as discovered in 2001” runs contrary to Mr. Chidambaram's public position. As does the Prime Minister's statement in the Rajya Sabha on February 24, 2011, which I had also referred to, wherein he had said: “The two ministers had agreed on this [i.e. pricing of spectrum] because of legacy considerations and I accepted their recommendations.” This is the “agreement” I spoke about when I asked, “If there is indeed an agreement, when was it struck and is it on the files?”
(ii) On the issue of “offloading of equity,” my article pointed out that the government failed to charge its “share of premium” from the “huge profits” earned by firms in case of M&As, which had been specifically agreed and documented in notes, including during his own meeting with Mr. Raja on January 30, 2008. Mr. Chidambaram does not contest my claim but notes that “no permission was required and no such permission was given” by the Finance Minister in the context of the Swan/Unitech M&As as they were within the automatic approval limit of 49 per cent for FDI in telecom. In fact, my article never alluded to the word “permission” or suggested that the same was given by the Finance Minister. I simply questioned why the government never got a share of the premium from the profits made (in the face of documented agreements).
Keywords: Chidambaram, 2G spectrum scam
Well done Shalini and the Hindu.
Firstly i want to thank the entire team of HINDU & particularlyy to Ms. Shalini Singh, if Chidambaram is Fair in his work he must answer to ur questions. Your's is the only organisation which is providing proper facts Hats off
With out the permission 4m the MOF Raja alone can't do this job. Letters exchanged b/w PMO, FM & Telecom Ministry is the best evidence to say who are the Culprits.
Ms Shalini Singh:As always,it was but expected of you to respond in a sui generis tone & tenor;so appropriate & in a befitting manner to the rejoinder issued by the then FM,to your article,wherein you had penned:'May not be out of 2G thicket yet'!Congrats on your boldness,always calling a spade a spade,come what may! Heartening to know about your promotion & having joined India's premier & primaeval Newspaper.Best of luck,for being a Senior Administrative Functionary,as of now.
Any amount of clarification by the then FM cannot wash off the sin committed by Raja under the passive observance of both the then FM and the PM in giving away th 2G spectrum in 2008 at 2001 prices.Even granting that Raja ignored theadvices of all concerned and went ahead with his own line of approach what prevented the PM to sack Raja and what prevented the then FM in resigning from the cabinet saying his advice was ignored and he cannot continue in the Govtt under such a circumstance.CD Deshmukh resigned as FM when a cabinet decision was taken keeping him in the dark.Ashok Mehta resigned as FM when the decision on devaluation was taken keeping him out of the decision.They were men of character and principles.Here they continued as a mute witness until he apex court stepped in.It is a trgedy that both the then FM and the PM should have consideredthe survival of the govtt more important than the national interest.The trial court has erred in their conclusions.
Shalini Singh's rejoinder to Chidambaram’s clarifications further
erodes his already weak defense. It is unfortunate that this learned
lawyer should underestimate a seasoned journalist of The Hindu and try
to confuse readers with out-of-context explanations. With such
statements and clarifications he and the government including the PM
are only further worsening their case. The Supreme Court order shall
be only a temporary reprieve. The same Chidambaram and the government
that supported Raja tooth and nail initially, have left him high and
dry to languish in jail. Raja has been wanting PM and Chidambaram to
be called as witnesses. Until his case is disposed of, common sense
warns that Raja and his other colleagues in jail are protected with
maximum security in view of the trend of eliminations that are
reported in the NRHM scam in UP. Same threat applies to Subramaniam
Swamy, who also needs to be protected. It is unfortunate that we,
citizens are being betrayed by our own protectors.
The tragedy is that the well informed law abiding common people at the middle and lower rungs of society who are intelligent enough to grasp matters and comment, who have no personal agenda of enriching themselves at the cost of others are far outnumbered by voters of the opposite calibre. Result? Undeserving get elected. Result? Scamsters and their enablers come to power. Need of the hour: more than electoral reform much more pro active judiciary that will punish the wrong doer howsoever high and mighty he be in quick time. Election petitions drag their feet endlessly
Congrats to the Hindu and to Shalini in particular. Chidambaram is at
naught to answer the two extremely relevant questions Shilini has asked.
Will judiciary rise to the level justice expects? Let's wait and see.
By saying this, mr Chidambaram, makes Mr A Raja as offender.
Issue (iv) formulated and decided by SC is not one but two issues. The first is whether the policy of first-come-first-served was ultra vires Art. 14. A decision that is ultra vires may be taken with the best of intentions. Such decisions are struck down by courts every now and then. The second issue is whether the policy favoured some applicants. The Prevention of Corruption Act states without reservation that if a decision confers undue benefit on someone else, the person who took that decision is criminally liable. Hopefully that issue is being considered in the trial court. However, it is unfortunate that SC clubbed that issue with the first, and decided it without even questioning the Minister of C&IT, thereby obfuscating the role of other players like Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh. Wasn’t it an open secret that suited-booted corporate honchos sprinted from the lobby of Sanchar Bhawan with bank drafts and other documents to be first at the post?
On the basis of my long understanding of politics in Tamilnadu, Mr. Chidambaram will never do an act that will bring loss to exchequer. On the contrary DMK and majority of its leaders are in politics only to grab power and flourish themselves just using catchy words like, Tamil sentiment, social justice etc to fool the uneducated masses. The way Karunanidhi's children and family indulged and flourishing today is example.
The coalition politics has come as a boon for DMK to alighn with BJP then Congress at the centre to grab money spinning portifolios to enrich themselves.This they have been doing for the last 12 years. Mr. Raja himself is a pawn and the real beneficiaries are the first family of DMK. In coalition politics, at times people like Chidambaram are helpless to stop the activities of DMK like parties. Mamata of Bengal is also a partner bur she is a honest person that is why no such scandal is attributed to her party, we all have to understand.
I am sorry but I have to note with a chuckle reading this is that, Mr.Chidambaram when mentioning 200 CrPC is talking at very high intellectual level of the case.Call it "intellectual arrogance" all you want, but Ms.Singh doesn't seem to understand why Mr.Chidambaram mentions it in her response.
Chidambaram's defence is that of a lawyer or a junior clerk in a revenue department who is barely six months into the job. This does not seem like the defence of the person who ocupies the role of the Finance Minister of India. The arguments do not inspire the confidence in Chidambaran who continues to occupy as senior a position as that of the Home Minister in the Union Govt. Chidambaram, the lawyer, also does not answer why he was in a tearing hurry to advise the PM within a week of the allotment by A Raja that, the "issue must be treated as closed". He should have left it to the PM saying A Raja did not agree with him, and not supported A Raja. It's unfortunate that the judiciary may not ultimately be able to nail the biggest scamsters of independent India- Chidambaram and Man Mohan Singh.
It is admitted that Mr Chidambaram is a great Lawyer and may even come out of this controversy unhurt due to tactful judicial interpretations of his ill legal and illegitimate action and ultimate judicial verdict in his favour. The fact remains that every knowledgeable one in this country knows the actual truth behind this transaction, which is that a precious national asset was just gifted away for the benefit of a powerful few to enrich their pockets. We are indeed thankful for Mr Subramaniam Swamy, Supreme Court of India and other patriotic/national spirited NGOs, individuals/media for exposing this large scam to the Nation so that politicians in power will think twice before indulging in such misdeeds and raping the Govt treasury of its wealth and income potential.
I dont think a competent minister like Mr. Chidambaram is directly involved in 2G case. Now that scam facts are sufacing I will not term Mr. Chidambaram as competent anymore. He definitely ignored due deligence in this matter when Finance Ministry had enough power to influence course correction. In addition, the PM is also equally accoutable when so many scribes had written letters about this blatant scam happening with impunity. PM and Chidambaram should be blamed for turning a blind eye and claim innocence.
Ms Shalini Singh's response to MR Chidambaram's rejoinder is apt and well put. Congrats to The Hindu for choosing on this Deputy Editor! We, the readers, hope to benefit from the wisdom thrown in from her articles - mostly unbiased, at that.
I wonder if Mr Subramanian Swamy wishes to hire her services before appealing on the verdict given by CBI Court, New Delhi!!
Fitting reply by Shalini Singh . Raja was a part of the/ UPA Govt and Mr MC/the PM this Govt had the right and collective duty to stop Raja. It didnt, even though national interests were being violated. Coalitions are formed to run the country ,yes but only according to the constitutional norms & also to protect national interests – not just to stay in power. Where is then the question of “ compulsions of coalition politics “ to allow for “arbitary ,capricious and illegal “ policy decisions to be taken by a Govt ,even detrimental to national interests ? The former FM & THE PM are both culpable- atleast for neglect of their national duties taken under oath. It is better Mr MC & PM resign and the Govt be dissolved as it has lost all its legitimacy to run this country & safeguard our national interests. Let us not forget, this very UPA Govt also had advocated & issued a statement earlier that "there should be no judicial intervention in policy decisions"! We now know why ?
Thank you Hindu for posting Mr.Chidambaram's response.Mr.Chidambaram is a gentleman and he proves it by providing a proper response without disrespect to the author of the original article.I hope the perception that there is something malicious in his actions regarding 2G licenses will clear in the days to come and the general public may get well apprised of the facts.We have to keep in mind, it is easier to blame but hard to take back allegations.As the great tamil poet wrote "Theeyinal Sutta Pun Ullarum Aaradhe Naavinal Sutta Vadu". I really appreciate the Hindu for keeping up with good journalism.
Your topic says "Never any 'agreement' with Raja not to revise entry fee". Looks your title has two negatives that make the meaning positive as "Agreement with Raja to revise entry fee".
I hope Mr. Chidambaram responds to the questions posed by Shalini at the end.
Well done, Shalini.
Can Mr. Chidambaram respond to a simple question, though his own ministry at that time was opposed to FSFS, and favored auction, under what circumstances did he agree to A.Raja's proposal. None of this in the documents, except that they agreed together. I think this is far from over though it will take time for the higher courts to rule against Chidambaram.
Mr Chidambaram is giving explanations to points never raised by Ms. Shalini Singh and he is silent on the two points concluded by the learned Judge. Being a person with normal intellect I wonder why our judiciary, which is entrusted to uphold the law, does not act fairly when the high and mighty are involved. Unless all the four branches of government, the executive, judiciary, legislative and bureaucracy act fairly, the common man cannot expect prosperity and fair treatment, and the way all these branches act in India, I am sure soon there will not be an entity called India.
First off, excellent work by your deputy editor Shalini Singh. These articles have the same depth as the ones Chitra did during the Bofors days and we appreciate The Hindu staying in the middle and stating the facts as one would expect the fourth estate. Question left pondering was is there any shame left for the government anymore? Or are they going to continue finding loopholes and making excuses.
Please Email the Editor