2G spectrum case
The 2G spectrum case was a political controversy in which politicians and private officials of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition government India were allegedly involved in [1] selling or allotting 122 2G spectrum licenses on conditions that provided an advantage to specific telecom operators. A. Raja, then Telecom Minister, was accused of selling 2G spectrum licenses at a very low cost which resulted in the loss of ₹1,760 billion (US$25 billion) in government revenue.[2] Raja was also accused of not following rules and regulations as well as not recognizing any advice from the Ministries of Finance and Law and Justice of India while allotting 2G spectrum licenses to telecom operators. Series of allegations were made on allotting 2G spectrum licenses including allegations from Central Bureau of Investigation after investigating the case alleging Raja for intentionally advancing the cut-off date (from 01/10/2007 to 25/09/2007)[3] to favour some specific firms (Unitech Wireless and Swan Telecom), which were allegedly ineligible for applying for telecom licenses, in return for bribes.
On 21 December 2017, the special court in New Delhi after thorough examination of the case and hearing what the CBI had to say, acquitted all accused in the 2G spectrum case including prime-accused Raja and Kanimozhi.[4] The court ruled that this case was baseless. As per the judgement, "Some people created a scam by artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels."[5][6]
On 19 and 20 March 2018, the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI respectively filed appeals against this verdict in the Delhi High Court.[7] On 22 March 2024, Delhi High Court's single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma agreed that the trial court's judgement requires deeper examination and re-appreciation of entire evidence and admitted the CBI's appeal. The High Court noted that there were several contradictions in the trial court's judgement.[8]
Response to the allegations[edit]
When Indian media began citing the CAG report identifying the loss at ₹ 1.76 trillion (short scale), the Indian opposition parties unanimously demanded the formation of a joint parliamentary committee to investigate the allegations.[241][242] Although the government rejected their demand,[242] when the winter session of Parliament began on 9 November 2010 the opposition again pressed for a JPC; again, their demand was rejected.[242] The demand for a JPC gained further momentum when the CAG report was tabled in Parliament on 16 November 2010.[243] The opposition blocked the proceedings, again pressing for a JPC;[244] the government again rejected their demand, creating an impasse.[245] Speaker of the Lok Sabha Meira Kumar unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the impasse.[246] The winter session of Parliament concluded on 13 December 2010. Although 22 new bills were planned to be introduced, 23 pending bills passed and three bills withdrawn, Parliament functioned for only nine hours.[247] On 22 February 2011, after resisting opposition demands for over three months, the government announced that it would form a JPC.[248] The JPC criticised the CBI for its leniency to the PM, the Attorney General, Dayanidhi Maran and Chidambaram and its reluctance to investigate their roles on 24 July 2012.[249] After questioning former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi and the head of Maxis Communications, the CBI alleged that the Maran brothers accrued an illegal ₹ 5.50 billion by the sale of Sun Direct TV shares at highly "inflated prices".[250]
In early November 2010 Jayalalithaa accused state chief minister M Karunanidhi of protecting Raja from corruption charges, calling for Raja's resignation.[251] By mid-November, Raja resigned.[252] At that time, comptroller Vinod Rai issued show-cause notices to Unitech, S Tel, Loop Mobile, Datacom (Videocon) and Etisalat to respond to his assertion that the 85 licenses granted to these companies did not have the capital required at application or were otherwise illegal.[253] It was speculated that because these companies provide some consumer service, they would receive large fines but retain their licenses.[253]
In June 2011 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh criticised the CAG for commenting on policy issues, warning it "to limit the office to the role defined in the constitution."[254] After Singh's criticism the CAG conducted a "rigorous internal appraisal" and stood by its findings, citing additional events as corroboration. The CAG reiterated that there was "an undeniable loss to the exchequer", the calculation of which was based on three estimates: the 3G auctions and the Swan and Unitech transactions. It cited the Supreme Court ruling of 2 February 2012 that the actions of Raja and officers at the Department of Telecom were "wholly arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the public interest, apart from being violative of the doctrine of equality. The material produced for the quote showed that the Minister for C&IT wanted to favour some companies at the cost of the public exchequer." It said its estimate of loss of 1.76 trillion was justified, since the May 2012 TRAI collation of reserve prices for 2G spectrum was about the same as that in the November 2010 CAG report. TRAI had recommended a reserve price for 2G spectrum of ₹ 180 billion for a pan-India 5 MHz licence, higher than the 3G value of ₹ 167.50 billion for 5 MHz used by the CAG for arriving at a loss figure of ₹ 1,760 billion. It concluded that it was only examining the "implementation of policy", and policy-making was the government's prerogative.[255]
Trial Court Verdict[edit]
On 21 December 2017, a Special CBI Court acquitted all the persons accused in the case.[206][256][257][258]
Special Judge OP Saini stated in his judgement: "There is no evidence on the record produced before the Court indicating any criminality in the acts allegedly committed by the accused persons.” He added that “the chargesheet of the instant case is based mainly on misreading, selective reading, non-reading and out of context reading of the official record” and that "the chargesheet is based on some oral statements made by the witnesses during investigation, which the witnesses have not owned up in the witness box.”[259]
Delhi High Court Appeal[edit]
On 19 and 20 March 2018, the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI respectively filed appeals against trial court verdict in the Delhi High Court.[260] On 22 March 2024, Delhi High Court's single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma agreed that the trial court's judgement requires deeper examination and re-appreciation of entire evidence and admitted the CBI's appeal. The court said that detailed arguments on the case will take place on 20 May.[8]
In his 120-page judgement, Justice Sharma observed that, "The allegation is not about an “ordinary criminal offence” but an “economic offence” which is a separate class and is “required to be handled with a different approach”. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The court during the hearing has also noticed some contradictions in the (trial court's) judgment itself, which requires deeper examination. The trial judge had “repeatedly noted” that the prosecution should have given an opportunity to the witness to explain the statement made by them." The high court said that this raises the question as to, “why the Ld. Judge presiding over the trial did not exercise his jurisdiction under the Indian Evidence Act to seek any clarity, if there was any ambiguity."[261]