PMO passes buck to Law Ministry

The affidavit elaborates how the Law Ministrys advice interprets Swamys language and intent in a letter to the PM: when Swamy wrote that the CBI was investigating the substance of his allegations,the Law Ministry interpreted it to mean that he agreed to let the CBI conclude its probe and then use the agencys evidence to collaborate and strengthen his case against Raja.

Swamy sent two letters dated October 23,2009 and October 31,2009 to the PM. The PMO had duly sent the letters to the Law Ministry for advice. An assistant legal advisor with the Law Ministry replied with the advice that the perusal of letter dated 23.10. 2009 and 31.10.2009,it is noticed that Shri Swamy wants to rely upon the action and investigation of the CBI to collaborate and strengthen the allegation leveled by him against Shri A Raja,Minister for Communication and Information Technology.

This note,reproduced in the affidavit,summed up that if it is so,then it may be stated that decision to accord sanction for prosecution may be determined only after the perusal of the evidence (oral or documentary) collected by the investigation, i.e.,CBI and other materials to be provided to the competent authority.

The affidavit states that it was this advice which was finally followed by the PMO,and later reflected later in Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) official Shantanu Consuls reply to Swamy on March 19,2010 which said his request for sanction is premature and CBI probe was already underway.

Swamys first missive had suggested that the CBI raids at Sanchar Bhawan and the subsequent filing of an FIR had made the case against Raja so strong that the PMs sanction was only a mere formality. The second letter had asked the PM to grant sanction by November 15,2009,failing which he (Swamy) would approach the courts against the inaction.

During an earlier hearing,Justice A K Ganguly,one of the judges hearing the case in the Supreme Court,had made an observation about whether Swamys right for sanction to prosecute Raja depends on the contingency of the CBI completing the investigation.

But in todays affidavit,Vidyavati explains that the PMO sought the Law Ministrys advice as that was the norm. It was pointed out that in earlier cases where sanction was sought to prosecute a minister,a decision was taken after obtaining the advice of the Ministry of Law and Justice, she states. The affidavit also admits that the PMO sent Swamys letter to Rajas ministry for an opinion. This step came under severe criticism from the court,which questioned the need for the PM,who is the sanctioning authority,to consult Raja in the case. The affidavit says that,subsequent to the Law Ministrys advice,the PM had approved a suggestion which emanated within the PMO that the Law Ministry itself should directly reply to Swamy.

But in a file note which the PMO received on March 4 this year,the Law Ministry excused itself from directly replying to Swamy on the ground that it was only an advisory body and not administratively concerned with the accord of sanction. The responsibility was thus passed on to the DoPT.

Vidyavati,who sourced the affidavit from records and her own personal knowledge,states that the PM had,on December 1,2008,perused Swamys original complaint for sanction on November 29,2008 with the words please examine and let me know the facts of the case and followed it up with similar notes whenever Swamy wrote to him.

She states that the PMO received letters on the same issue from MPs Gurudas Dasgupta and Suravaran Sudhakar Reddy on November 10,2008 and November 22,2008,respectively that is even prior to Swamys plea for sanction.