The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the Centre on the slow progress of investigation in the 2G spectrum scam which, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) stated, caused a loss to the national exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,39,652 crore and a corresponding gain to few private persons and companies.
A Bench of Justice G. S. Singhvi and Justice A. K. Ganguly is hearing a writ petition filed by the “Centre for PIL” seeking action on the basis of the draft audit report submitted by CAG and a special leave petition filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy for a direction to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to decide on his application seeking sanction for prosecution of the Communications Minister A. Raja.
When counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for PIL submitted to the court that no action had been taken on the CAG report, Additional Solicitor-General Harin Raval said it was only a draft report. He said the government would get the final report only after it was finalised and placed in Parliament.
ADVERTISEMENT
When he said enquiry by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) were proceeding on the right direction, Justice Ganguly told him: “Already one year has gone by. How long will you take, another 10 years to complete the investigation? It is a slip-shod work. You [government] are dragging your feet.” Mr. Raval said, “We need at least six months time. It is a complex issue and there is enormity of material. We have examined about 5,800 telephone calls.”
When Mr. Bhushan submitted that the CAG report stated that the entire process of spectrum allocation was undertaken in an arbitrary manner by the Communications Minister, but he had not even been interrogated, Justice Ganguly told Mr. Raval: “The same Minister is still continuing. Is that the way the government is functioning? Is this the rule of law? Do you follow the same standards in respect of every one?”
Senior counsel T. R. Andhyarujina, appearing for Mr. Raja, submitted that the contents of the draft CAG report were only tentative. Explaining the swift action taken by the CBI, he said over 150 files were taken away from the officials of the Telecom Department and whatever reply he [Minister] would be putting in would be inadequate without materials. He claimed a totally “wrong impression” had been given by filing draft reports of the CAG to “sensationalise” the entire issue. He submitted that selective portions were brought to the notice of the court and the Minister's reply to the Chief Vigilance Commission was not read out. “The Minister has given a complete answer to the CVC.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Since Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam did not appear on Friday for the government, the matter was posted for further hearing on November 15. Justice Singhvi asked Mr. Raval to tell the Solicitor-General that the court wanted to know the government's stand on the CAG report on the next date of hearing. Justice Singhvi said the court would peruse the status reports filed by the CBI and the ED into the investigations in the case filed in sealed covers after hearing the SG.
Swami's complaint
Dr. Subramanian Swamy submitted that the Prime Minister, who was the authority to sanction for prosecution, had not decided on his application for nearly two years. He should be permitted to file a complaint before the magistrate concerned for direction to investigate the case. Justice Singhvi told him that court would hear him on the next date of hearing.