2-G scam: Apex court asks PM why delay in pulling up Raja?

“The three months time for grant of sanction laid by the Supreme Court is clear for fair and good governance,” the Bench told Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium,who was appearing for the government.

“We find it is now more than 16 months. The sanctioning authority can say I am not not inclined to give sanction. But we find alleged inaction and silence troubling,” the Bench observed,” adding,”The sanctioning authority can say yes or no”.

The Bench was categorical that the competent authority in the case (Prime Minister) should have acted within three months of receiving the complaint of Swamy in accordance with guidelines laid down in the Vineet Narain judgment relating to the Hawala case.

“The judgment in the Vineet Narain case has fixed certain time-limit for grant of sanction by the competent authority. It is open to the sanctioning authority to refer (application) or consult the Attorney General,” the Bench said.

The court was going into the issue of delay in sanction on the complaint filed by Swam on November 29,2008 and the case registered by the CBI against “unknown persons” on October 21,2009 seeking to know the developments during the period.

The Bench also expressed dissatisfaction over the language used by the Prime Minister’s office in his reply to the letter concerning the plea seeking the prosecution of Raja.

It was informed that the first response to Swamy’s letter to the Prime Minister on the issue was received on March 19,2010 in which it was said that the plea made by him was “premature” as investigation was being carried out by the CBI.

“The comment from the highest authority,when such letter comes from such highest authority,the language should be very carefully used. The highest constitutional authority can consult the Attorney General. Only the highest authority can consult the Attorney General and not everybody. It is open to the sanctioning authority to refer to the AG,” the Bench said,adding,the reply was not coming from a municipal authority.

The court said: “We are examining the Constitutional and legal validity of the reply. This is what is troubling us. So you (SG) seek the record. We are adjourning the matter for Thursday.”

It said the complaint filed by Swamy on November 29,2008,was “not a vague” assertion of the alleged wrong done by the respondents including Raja.

“We want to know whether papers (of Swamy) were ever placed before the sanctioning authority,” the Bench said.

Responding to the question,Subramanium said: “There was no question of overlooking these papers and close on the heels of these papers supplied by Swamy,the case was registered on October 21,2009.”

“So what happened between November 29,2008 (the date on which a private complaint was made by Swamy) and October 21,2009 when the CBI registered the case against unknown officials of Department of Telecom (DoT),” the Bench sought to know from the SG and asked him to apprise it of the developments during the period.

Swamy commenced his arguments by saying that since Raja has resigned as a telecom minister there was no need for any sanction to prosecute him nor would he be protected even if he was allocated another portfolio.

He said when he made a complaint and sought Raja’s prosecution,the Prime Minister should have decided the issue on the basis of the materials supplied by him.

“He should have take a prima-facie view on the basis of my material. If he was not satisfied he would have rejected my plea,” Swamy said adding that “the Prime Minister should have acted himself and should have applied his mind independently”.

“He did not apply his mind independently and instead waited for more material,” Swamy said when the Bench opined that the Prime Minister waited for materials which were not germane to the matter.

Countering the submissions made by Swamy,the Solicitor General said the sanctioning authority can take the reference and materials from investigating agencies for taking the decision.

However,the Bench,which was annoyed over the delay on the issue,wanted to know from him “whether a private citizen has a right to ask for sanction relating to corruption by a public servant”.

“Supposing,I am a private person,my right to seek sanction,can it be made to depend on CBI or investigating agencies. It will be uncertain. Can my right be dependent on such a contingency. Whether he has a right. Whether a private citizen has to ask for sanction?” Justice Ganguly asked.

The Solicitor General said it is open for a private person to ask for sanction by corrupt public servant which can be granted on the basis of cogent material.

He said in a situation where the case is registered and investigation is carried out by the agencies,it is open for the sanctioning authority to wait till the result of the probe. Sanction can be kept on hold when the investigation is carried out.

At this point,the Bench wanted to know from the Solicitor General “what would have been the position if the CBI had not registered the case. What would have been the time-limit for grant of sanction by the competent authority”.

The court,which noted that Swamy waited patiently for 11 months,observed that “for good governance there must be some time-limit for granting sanctions,if not three-months. But 11 months is too long”.

Subramanium said in the present case the competent authority needed to wait as he wanted to act carefully by going through sufficient material.

However,the Bench observed that instead of waiting,the competent authority could have said that material supplied along with complaint was not sufficient.

Meanwhile,the Congress refused to comment on the Supreme Court’s observations.

“I do not know what is the court’s observation; whether it is an observation or direction to the government. I have not seen the text of it. First,the party and the government would analyse what has been said and then will decide about the response to be given. Till the entire text of what the court has said is not seen and analysed,it will be very difficult to make any comment,” party spokesperson Shakeel Ahmed told reporters here.

He was asked for his reaction on the apex court’s action.

Janta Party leader Subramaniam Swami had sought the court’s intervention on the ground that his application before the Prime Minister seeking his sanction to prosecute A Raja for corruption is pending for the last two years.

The party also sought to back Raja’s argument for putting in his papers as Telecom Minister.

“He has himself taken the decision to resign after talking to his party’s leader and has also explained that he did it to ensure the smooth functioning of Parliamentary democracy. We do not find any reason to disagree with his remarks,” Ahmed said.

The Congress spokesperson categorically said neither the party nor the government are in favour of JPC into the 2-G scam.

Ahmed,however,parried questions on CAG’s remarks against Raja,saying the report has been tabled in Parliament and the party will go through the constitutional process.

He also appealed to the Opposition to get back to business saying “disrupting Parliament proceedings is no solution”.

A senior Congress leader on the condition of anonymity said the PM’s acknowledging letters written by Raja does not mean the licenses were sanctioned with his consent.

He said that the resignation of Raja points to changing equations in UPA II,where Congress is in a more powerful position with larger number of seats than it had in the UPA I government.