SC raps Centre for 'casual' handling of 2G

Rejects govt affidavit, asks why entire 2G spectrum was not put on recent auction

The Supreme Court today rejected the government’s  reply to its persistent query why the whole spectrum available was not auctioned on November 12.  
 
The court objected to an undersecretary filing the reply, instead of the secretary of the telecom ministry. “An undersecretary has no business to file the affidavit; we have indicated this earlier also,” the bench observed, and added that the government was dealing this serious issue “very casually.”

Later, dictating the order, the judges summarized their objection and described the government attitude as “unfortunate”. They recorded how this lapse was being repeated by the government in the 2G spectrum case though the court had on earlier occasions had told it to desist from it.

The court granted two days to the government to file a proper reply and the case will be heard again on Monday.

Senior counsel P P Rao, who represented the government, said that 800 and 1,800 Mhrz were put up for auction. The 900 band was kept out as it was not available and new technology has to be introduced for that band.  The judges said that the court was not informed about the bands available for auction though the government had approached the court several times for extension of time for auction. They said that the government must give a proper explanation for not auctioning the whole spectrum which became available after the court quashed 122 licences in its February 2 judgment.

The court accepted two sets of status reports from the CBI and Central Vigilance Commission regarding the ongoing enquiry and prosecution of the persons and companies involved in the 2G scam.  The bench headed by Justice  G S Singhvi stated that there are several valuable suggestions contained in the reports, which were in the sealed cover and seen only by the judges. The court asked the concerned authorities to consider the suggestions to avoid further scams in future.

The court heard the explanation of the CBI why the Attorney General was consulted on the question of prosecuting certain companies like Airtel, Vodafone and their top executives who are accused of using their clout in 2002 to get licences changing the norms.

According to CBI counsel K K Venugopal, when there is a difference of opinion between the prosecutors and CBI, the manual recommends reference of the issue to the AG. The argument will continue next week.

The Centre for Public Interest Litigation refuted this stand and insisted that there was no difference of opinion among the officers regarding prosecution of the company heads.