Supreme Court, September 20, 2011
MY CASE IN BRIEF
1.Before Your Lordships would have been placed my augmentedIA No.18 containing additional documents along with IA No.24.
• I have two submissions to add today.
2. First,Your Lordships may recall asking me if I could document the holding of four meetings between the FM P. Chidambaram and TM A. Raja regarding the 2G Spectrum licence price.
• I have filed documents by which I now can substantiate the holding of these meetings, namely on 30.1.08, 29.5.08, 12.6.08, and with the PM on 4.7.08.
3. IA No. 18 [ANNEXURE R, p. 54-64 at p.60 para 1] confirms meetings 29.5.08 and 12.6.08 for 2G Spectrum licence price.
• The same page shows PM’s meeting of 4.7.08 originally for 12.6.08, but postponed. This latter date is also the date mentioned by PM in the RajyaSabha [ANNEXURE Q, IA No. 18, p. 51-53].
• As far as 30.1.08 is concerned the documented in a DEA Note, and came into possession today from the trial court papers.
4.Second, the question now arises as to why the CBI is insistent that Raja was solely responsible for the price fixing as revelaed by CBI’s correspondence [ANNEXURE P COLLY, esp (b) p. 45-46 & (d) p. 49].
5. CBI’s apparent knowledge of documents, judging by the correspondenceand the charge sheet, is frozen at November 22nd2007.
• It seems unaware of the subsequent developments and correspondence.
• But It cannot be completeignorance of the documents that I have brought on record, because one document—the CAG in its Report [p.26-27] had explicitly pointed to the prima facie lapse of the Minister of Financewhich lapse is worthy of at least an investigation.
5. Based on the records submitted herein in this IA, the CBI investigation into the question of culpability for the offence and subsequent loss of revenue willfully caused, is on the face of the records, isclearly incomplete.
• Instead, CBI goes out of its way to give a laudatory citation !
• The CBI seems either blissfully unaware or is it just shy !
NATIONAL SECURITY ANGLE
6.. Your Lordships may recall that I had submitted documents to Your Lordships in this Hon’ble Court regarding the national security angle based on an Advisory sent to the then Minister of Finance by the Home ministry. This arose out the issuing of shares to Etisalat and Telenor by Swan and Unitech and well before the lock in period was over.
7. Your Lordships had directed the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Venugopal to investigate the matter and file a status report. It has not been complied with as yet.
• In the meantime, the Minister in charge of the CBI has informed me [IA No. 24 ANNEXURE O, p. 30] that the matter rests with the Home Ministry, whose Minister is culpable!
8.I did bring this matter to the notice of the CBI [p 41-42] and through the Minister in charge of CBI [p. 30] on the national security angle. No avail!
9. Thus, my Prayer [ IA No.18 p.7-8 ] herein is that the CBI be directed to investigate Mr. P. Chidambaram and file a status report in this Hon’ble Court.
NOTES
The matter in this IA relates to an offence recorded in November 2008from spectrum licence pricing[CBI’s FIR No.RC/DAI/2009 A0045] against unnamed persons.
5. The Final Reportfiled in this Hon’ble Court on April 3, 2011 [ANNEXURE A; Charge E( p 56) at p 11-18 herein in the IA]the CBI had charged MoCIT Raja with fixing the entry fee at the level discovered in the auction of 2001[and zero one time spectrum charge]. This caused a huge loss to the exchequer because the spectrum licences were fetching much higher price judging by a number of criteria,
7. Records prima facie show thatthe Finance Minister[ thenP.Chidambaram]was prima facie culpable in the offence.
8. Records relied on herein are:
[1] the disclosure of the Prime Minister to the Parliament on 24.2.11 [ circulate; or see IA No. 24, ANNEXURE ], and to a media conference [IA No.18 ANNEXURE E p. 31-32].
[2] The FM was aware that he was mandated by a Cabinet Resolution of 2003 which was re-affirmed in 2006, to jointly determine the spectrum price with MoC&IT[ IA No.18, ANNEXURE D p. 28 and F at p. 33 and IA No. 24 in ANNEXURE J p. 12-13].
• On January 15, 2008, the FM penned a Note to PM [para 13, ANNEXURE D p. 27-30] advising whatever was decided as spectrum price as “a closed chapter”. This despite the DEA Position Paper of 3.1.08 to the contrary [See ANNEXURE B, p.19 of IA]
• On April 21, 2008, FM wrote to MCIT [ANNEXURE F, p. 33-37].proposing a meeting to seal an agreement and to meet together the PM.
• Subsequently the two Ministers met on three occasions i.e., 30.1.08; 29.5.08, and 12.6.08 tofinalise the Spectrum charges, before jointly meeting the PM on July 4, 2008.
• No Minutes are available of any of these meetings [see in IA No. 24 ANNEXURE L p.21].
[3] The C&AG Report [ p.26-27] recognizes what the then Finance Minister ought to have done.The letters written by FS and replied to,should have triggered the Minister of Finance to perform his sworn Constitutional duty under Rule 4 Transaction of Business Rules framed under Article 77(3) of the Constitution, and to be read with Rule 7..
• The CBI could not have missed that.
[4] The testimony on oath in the trial court of the then Telecom SecyBehura referring to aMeeting of the two Ministers in which a Note was prepared [ IA No. 24 ANNEXURE L p.22-23].
[5] The evidentiary and valid sworn depositions of officials referred to in the unadopted 2011 PAC Report [see my book p. 56--] wherein it is admitted by officials that it was a lapse . It needs to be investigated whether it was bonafide lapse..
[6] Raja’s Nakeeran interviews, RadiaTapes[ IA No. 24, ANNEXURE K p. 14 colly], etc., fortify this allegation prima facie.
Points on P.Chidambaram’s 2G Spectrum Scam
Supreme Court, September 21, 2011
MY REPLY IN BRIEF
1. The counter arguments both the Learned Counsels for the CBI and Mr. Chidambaram have relied on technicalities, all of it unfounded.
2. It is well settled that in a non-adversorial format of a PIL, public interest in justice must prevail over technicalities. Even laches of several years are overlooked for this. That is the discretion in the use of plenary power of this Hon’ble Court.
3. In this matter, public interest has been well defined in Your Lordships’ Order of December 16, 2010. It is also well stated in VineetNarain [(1996) 2 SCC 199 paras 2,3,&4.].
4. Even if the full and final Charge Sheet is filed in the trial court, even then two of the most recent judgments one of Narmada Bai [(2011) 5 SCC 79 at ] and of NarendraModi in…, this Hon’ble Court has not barred a new Application for further direction; and it is my submission especially where a prima facie case of malafide truncation of the investigation takes places.
5. In their counter arguments [”demurrer”] they have not denied the documents disclosing that four meetings namely on 30.1.08, 29.5.08, 12.6.08, and [with the PM on 4.7.08],between the FM P. Chidambaram and TM A. Raja were held regarding the 2G Spectrum licence price.
6. The meeting of minds, an alleged collusion or conspiracy in fixing of price of the impugned Spectrum Licence[all three dimensions] is prima facie made out in the documents and such meeting of minds, albeit bonafide, was required by a Cabinet Resolution of October 31, 2003.
7. Minutes have been destroyed, documents misplaced, lies have have told. The new FM in his letter to PM in 2011 makes that clear.
8. I would also like to make clear that although the CBI had made clear in the trial court that the Agency does not want to have anything to do in the prosecution with my case, here before Your Lordships they are lumping the two cases together.
9. Mine is a distinct and separate case for which the Special Judge has given me permission to conduct my own case. It has not reached the stage of filing a charge sheet.
10. As a private person and a regular tax payer , I am entitled to ask the CBI to assist in the case. But I cannot according to settled law ask the Special Judge to ask the CBI to investigate under Cr.P.C. 202. That relief I can get here.
11. Based on the records submitted herein in this IA, the CBI investigation into the question of culpability for the offence and subsequent loss of revenue willfully caused, is on the face of the records, is clearly incomplete.
12. The question now arises as to why the CBI is insistent that Raja was solely responsible for the price fixing
• Instead, CBI goes out of its way to give a laudatory citation for the MoF!
• The CBI was made aware not only by me but by the CAG. Is it just shy !
13. Thus, my Prayer [ IA No.18 p.7-8 ] herein is that the CBI be directed to investigate Mr. P. Chidambaram and file a status report in this Hon’ble Court.
NOTES
I have filed documents by which I now can substantiate the holding of these meetings,
3. IA No. 18 [ANNEXURE R, p. 54-64 at p.60 para 1] confirms meetings 29.5.08 and 12.6.08 for 2G Spectrum licence price.
• The same page shows PM’s meeting of 4.7.08 originally for 12.6.08, but postponed. This latter date is also the date mentioned by PM in the RajyaSabha [ANNEXURE Q, IA No. 18, p. 51-53].
• As far as 30.1.08 is concerned the documented in a DEA Note, and came into possession today from the trial court papers.
4.Second, as revelaed by CBI’s correspondence [ANNEXURE P COLLY, esp (b) p. 45-46 & (d) p. 49].
5. CBI’s apparent knowledge of documents, judging by the correspondence and the charge sheet, is frozen at November 22nd2007.
• It seems unaware of the subsequent developments and correspondence.
• But It cannot be complete ignorance of the documents that I have brought on record, because one document—the CAG in its Report [p.26-27] had explicitly pointed to the prima facie lapse of the Minister of Finance which lapse is worthy of at least an investigation.
NOTES
The matter in this IA relates to an offence recorded in November 2008from spectrum licence pricing [CBI’s FIR No.RC/DAI/2009 A0045] against unnamed persons.
5. The Final Reportfiled in this Hon’ble Court on April 3, 2011 [ANNEXURE A; Charge E( p 56) at p 11-18 herein in the IA] the CBI had charged MoCIT Raja with fixing the entry fee at the level discovered in the auction of 2001[and zero one time spectrum charge]. This caused a huge loss to the exchequer because the spectrum licences were fetching much higher price judging by a number of criteria,
7. Records prima facie show thatthe Finance Minister[ then P.Chidambaram ]was prima facie culpable in the offence.
8. Records relied on herein are:
[1] the disclosure of the Prime Minister to the Parliament on 24.2.11 [ circulate; or see IA No. 24, ANNEXURE ], and to a media conference [IA No.18 ANNEXURE E p. 31-32].
[2] The FM was aware that he was mandated by a Cabinet Resolution of 2003 which was re-affirmed in 2006, to jointly determine the spectrum price with MoC&IT[ IA No.18, ANNEXURE D p. 28 and F at p. 33 and IA No. 24 in ANNEXURE J p. 12-13].
• On January 15, 2008, the FM penned a Note to PM [para 13, ANNEXURE D p. 27-30] advising whatever was decided as spectrum price as “a closed chapter”. This despite the DEA Position Paper of 3.1.08 to the contrary [See ANNEXURE B, p.19 of IA]
• On April 21, 2008, FM wrote to MCIT [ANNEXURE F, p. 33-37].proposing a meeting to seal an agreement and to meet together the PM.
• Subsequently the two Ministers met on three occasions i.e., 30.1.08; 29.5.08, and 12.6.08 tofinalise the Spectrum charges, before jointly meeting the PM on July 4, 2008.
• No Minutes are available of any of these meetings [see in IA No. 24 ANNEXURE L p.21].
[3] The C&AG Report [ p.26-27] recognizes what the then Finance Minister ought to have done. The letters written by FS and replied to, should have triggered the Minister of Finance to perform his sworn Constitutional duty under Rule 4 Transaction of Business Rules framed under Article 77(3) of the Constitution, and to be read with Rule 7. .
• The CBI could not have missed that.
[4] The testimony on oath in the trial court of the then Telecom SecyBehura referring to a Meeting of the two Ministers in which a Note was prepared [ IA No. 24 ANNEXURE L p.22-23].
[5] The evidentiary and valid sworn depositions of officials referred to in the unadopted 2011 PAC Report [see my book p. 56--] wherein it is admitted by officials that it was a lapse . It needs to be investigated whether it was bonafide lapse..
[6] Raja’s Nakeeran interviews, RadiaTapes[ IA No. 24, ANNEXURE K p. 14 colly], etc., fortify this allegation prima facie.
Source : Janata Party
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.