The Supreme Court on Thursday virtually singled out former telecom minister A. Raja in the 2G scam by questioning his decision to allot 2G spectrum licences in 2007 ignoring the advice given by the then law minister and the Prime Minister.
A bench comprising Justice G. S. Singhvi and Justice A. K. Ganguly went on to observe that the facts showed Raja had not given due respect to Prime Minister Manmohan Sihgh by ignoring his request to consider spectrum pricing through a fair and transparent method of auction.
Virtually questioning his haste, the court observed: " Nothing would have happened if he had waited for three- four days after the letter by the Prime Minister. Is this the way a government functions?" Raja had responded to the November 2, 2007 letter by Singh on the same day. Rejecting his proposal, Raja had stated that it would be " unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious" to auction 2G spectrum.
Taking strong exception to the use of the terms unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious in Raja's letter to the Prime Minister, the court told Raja's counsel T. R. Andhyarujina to look at the command over the language.
" Look at the gloss of the language.
The standard practice is when you write to your senior your language is temperate," the court said.
" May be I am wrong. I could have acted better but ( the charge of) disrespect to PM is unfounded… I have not shown disrespect to the PM," Andhyarujina said.
He, thereafter, expressed displeasure over solicitor general Gopal Subramanium submitting before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that more respect should have been paid to the Prime Minister's letter.
" I have the greatest respect for the Prime Minister," Andhyarujina said.
Subramanium, representing the Union telecom ministry, had defended the policy of the government but had distanced himself from some of the actions by Raja in his personal capacity as a minister.
He, in fact, seemed to agree with the court that Raja should have given more importance to the advice by the Prime Minister and should have adopted a more transparent process for allotment of licences.
Point- counterpoint
Court: PM asked you to give urgent consideration ( to auction) in view of transparency… he was overruled
Andhyarujina: A letter was written ( on the same day) in response to the PM's letter
Court: Nothing would have happened if he had waited for 3- 4 days… Is that the way the government functions? The PM wanted you to consider a transparent auction in the backdrop of inadequate spectrum… this is a good justification for auction
Andhyarujina: The letter was responded to
Court: After law minister, PM also writes but after this he ( Raja) shoots a letter and goes his own way
Andhyarujina: PM is entitled to the greatest respect but his colleague in the cabinet can say…
Court: With your experience, say if a minister seeks opinion and if it is not accepted… does he write to the PM?
Andhyarujina: Does he show disrespect ( by doing so)?
Court: Prima facie it appears to be so... see the command over your language… ( while rejecting PM's suggestion) you use the words unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious
Andhyarujina: He is repeating what TRAI had said...
No comments:
Post a Comment