2G case acquittal despite SC monitored probe that Centre requested in ‘public interest’

The apex court had, on no less than three occasions, recorded that it undertook to keep an eagle eye on the CBI probe.

December 21, 2017 05:31 pm | Updated December 01, 2021 06:28 am IST - NEW DELHI

Special judge O.P. Saini’s acquittal of the accused in the 2G spectrum allocation cases , citing the inability of the prosecution to prove the charges, is despite a Supreme Court monitored investigation ordered in “larger public interest”on the basis of a request made by the previous United Progressive Alliance government.

The apex court had, on no less than three occasions in its order dated September 3, 2013, recorded that it undertook to keep an eagle eye on the CBI probe after the Central government and the investigating agency requested it to do so “having regard to the larger public interest involved and the necessity of a proper investigation and also with the ultimate object of unearthing the crime”.

K.K. Venugopal, who represented the CBI in the Supreme Court and is the present Attorney General of India, had argued in the apex court that the Centre had “virtually invited” the Supreme Court to intervene in the probe.

 

The court had also agreed, on the basis of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) reports, that the allegations against the accused prima facie warranted its intervention to do justice. It had held that Article 21 of the Constitution demanded a “through” investigation and speedy trial.

“We are, prima facie , satisfied that the allegations contained in the writ petition and the affidavits filed before this Court, which are supported not only by the documents produced by them, but also the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to the Director, CBI, on October 12, 2009 and the findings recorded by the CAG in the Performance Audit Report, need a thorough and impartial investigation,” the Supreme Court had recorded in its order.

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Public Prosecutor for the 2G cases, senior advocate Anand Grover, on December 21, agreed that the court had passed orders on the prima facie veracity of the allegations against the accused. He said an appeal would lie against the acquittal in the Delhi High Court.

The court had stepped in following writ petitions filed by Subramanian Swamy and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) for an impartial investigation.

The court had backed CAG Vinod Rai’s work as the “most important officer under the Constitution of India and his duty, being the guardian of the public purse, is to see that not a farthing of it is spent without the authority of Parliament”.

In an order on December 16, 2010, the apex court noted that the CAG had prima facie found “serious irregularities in the grant of licences to 122 applicants” leading to a “huge loss to the public exchequer running into several thousand crores”. The court had recorded that its decision to intervene was based on a “large number of documents”, which included the CAG report pegging the “wrongful loss to the government to the tune of ₹1.76 lakh crore”.

The Supreme Court in 2012 went on to cancel all 122 licences allotted to various entities.

Acquittal is totally wrong: Prashant Bhushan

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who argued for the CPIL, said: "This acquittal is totally wrong. There was considerable evidence against the accused at several levels. There was considerable evidence of fixing, considerable evidence of companies forming benami companies and evidence of consideration being passed like shares, etc."

 

Describing the "public interest" involved in the 2G cases, the Supreme Court had observed that "when persons involved in crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling that they can get away with any crime which tarnish the image not only of the investigating agency but judicial system as well".

Asked whether the Supreme Court should have intervened at all, former Supreme Court judge K.T. Thomas said court monitoring of investigation was a methodology founded by the court to see that the investigation is completed without unnecessary delay. “In many cases, they prove to be good. But in our judge-centric trials, it is finally left to the judicial discretion of the trial court judge to decide whether there was enough evidence or not against the accused. An appeal in this case has to be preferred,” he said.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.