PM blames law ministry for his 2G inaction in affidavit to SC

A beleaguered Prime Minister on Saturday blamed his legal advisers for not taking any decision on allowing the prosecution of then telecom minister A. Raja for his alleged role in the 2G scam.

Manmohan Singh rebutted the Opposition's charge that he was a silent spectator to the 2G spectrum allocation process, while his team pointed fingers at the law ministry for the inaction on the request for the grant of allowing the minister's prosecution.

In an affidavit filed on behalf of the PM, V. Vidyavati, a director in the PMO, pointed to a routine movement of files right from the day Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy's letter dated November 29, 2008 was read by Dr Singh on December 1, 2008. However, the affidavit virtually skirts the issue of inaction.

The only excuse for not taking any decision on Swamy's plea is apparently a belated legal advice from the law ministry suggesting that a decision to accord sanction may be taken after perusal of evidence collected by the CBI - which had registered an FIR in the matter 11 months after Swamy sought sanction to file a case against Raja.

In the affidavit, the Prime Minister says at the very outset: "I am making this affidavit only for the purpose of showing how the various letters received from the petitioner (Swamy) have been duly considered." Though Swamy has been contending that the Prime Minister was bound to decide a request for sanction within three months according to a Supreme Court ruling, the affidavit shows that the file kept moving back and forth for six months until the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) referred the matter to the law ministry on May 29, 2009, for legal advice.

The legal advice was sought well before the CBI registered a case in the scam on October 21, 2009, against unknown persons, but the PMO received a formal response from the law ministry after over eight months on February 8, 2010.

Law minister M. Veerappa Moily approved the advice on January 26, 2010. The only excuse for the delay in giving legal advice seems to be the fact that on June 8, 2009, the law ministry stated that it had called for the views of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to examine the matter in the "right perspective". Interestingly, the PMO had already referred the matter to the DoT on March 24, 2009, over two months before it was referred to the law ministry.

On March 25, a director in the PMO dealing with telecom, Amit Agarwal, wrote to the DoT asking it to send a suitable reply to Swamy. Raja, subsequently, wrote to Swamy on June 18, 2009, stating that his demand was not justified.

With the Prime Minister yet to reply, Swamy sent reminders to Singh after the CBI registered an FIR in the matter. With the PMO having sought legal advice five months before the registration of the FIR, the subsequent letters by Swamy were also forwarded to the law ministry. Though Swamy had pointed to the CBI case to state that sanction was now a mere formality, the law ministry stated that since Swamy had himself the referred to the CBI probe, the Prime Minister should wait till evidence was collected by the agency.

A reply was, thereafter, sent to Swamy on March 19, 2010, stating the reason why a decision on his request was kept pending.

A bench comprising Justices G. S. Singhvi and A. K. Ganguly was informed during the hearing on November 16 that a decision on sanction had not been taken because the CBI was probing the matter. The court, however, noted that the CBI had registered an FIR about 11 months after Swamy sought sanction.

"Swamy sought sanction for filing a case on November 29, 2008, and the CBI registered an FIR against unknown persons only in October 2009…. What happened (in the PMO) during the 11 months in between," Justice Ganguly had asked.

After Swamy pointed out that the Supreme Court had set a deadline of three months for deciding a request for sanction, the bench observed the "alleged inaction and silence was troubling". With the bench questioning the silence by the Prime Minister, solicitor general Gopal Subramanium stated that he would be able to explain the reason for the delay only after looking into the files.

The court, thereafter, adjourned the matter to November 18 when Subramanium stated that all letters by Swamy concerning the 2G scam had been adequately dealt with by the Prime Minister. He said he had got the entire records which made it clear that they were dealt with responsibly and Swamy got responses. Swamy, however, objected saying he had got only one letter from the Prime Minister.

In further embarrassment to the Prime Minister, the court sought an affidavit on his behalf as the records could not be made available to Swamy for his response. A day after the hearing, the government asked attorney general G. E. Vahanvati to appear for the Prime Minister on November 23.

In order to strengthen the legal team further, the government is learnt to have requested senior counsel K. K. Venugopal to represent the CBI during the hearing of the case. Subramanium will continue to represent the DoT.
MOVING FILES

Following are excerpts of the affidavit filed on behalf of PM in the SC that details the journey of the file containing Swamy's letter:

* NOV 29, 2008: Swamy writes to PM seeking sanction to file case against Raja
* DEC 1, 2008: "Please examine and let me know the facts of this case." PM writes on the file after perusing the letter. File is marked to the principal secretary to the PM who then sends it to the secretary. The secretary marks it to the director in the PMO
* DEC 5, 2008: Director prepares a note summarising allegations and seeks approval for obtaining the factual position from the department in the PMO dealing with telecom
* DEC 11, 2008: Copy of Swamy's letter sent to DoT secretary with a request to send report to PMO
* FEB 13, 2009: DoT sends a reply to the PMO giving its comments
* MAY 30, 2009: Swamy sends a second letter referring to his earlier letter
* JUNE 1, 2009: PM endorses the May 30 letter saying "please examine and discuss". This is endorsed by principal secretary who sends it to the concerned joint secretary
* OCT 23, 2009: Swamy writes another letter informing about the CBI raids at Sanchar Bhawan and says sanction now was a mere formality
* OCT 27, 2009: PM notes on the letter "Please discuss" and refers it to the principal secretary
* OCT 31, 2009: Swamy writes a letter pointing to the FIR by CBI which supported his allegations and sets a deadline of Nov 15, 2009 for the PM to take a decision on his request
* NOV 3, 2009: PMO receives the Oct 31 letter
* NOV 4, 2009: PM endorses "please examine" and marks it to the principal secretary
* NOV 18, 2009: Both letters discussed with PM who stated that the law ministry should examine and advice. Director in PMO prepares a note forwarding the letters to the law ministry for advice
* FEB 8, 2010: PMO receives advice; it says a decision on Swamy's request be taken only after perusal of evidence collected by the CBI
* FEB 9, 2010: Director prepares a note placing the advice on record. Joint secretary suggests that the law ministry should be asked to send a reply to Swamy
* FEB 13, 2010: PM approves the decision to ask the law ministry to send a reply to Swamy
* MAR 4, 2010: PMO receives a reply from the law ministry stating that it was only an advisory body and not the authority to grant sanction; the department of personnel and training be requested to reply
* MAR 8, 2010: Swamy writes to PM stating that the CVC had written to the telecom minister regarding the irregularities
* MAR 18, 2010: PMO requests DoPT to send a reply to Swamy
* MAR 19, 2010: DoPT sends a reply to Swamyhttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/120666/Headlines%20Today%20Top%20Stories/pm-blames-law-ministry-for-his-2g-inaction-in-affidavit-to-sc.html