Swamy versus PMO

Former Union minister Subramanian Swamy’s letters to the Prime Minister’s Office and the action taken.

SWAMY’S LETTER
November 29, 2008:

Seeks permission for sanction under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, because of allegations against Swan Telecom and Unitech and alleged breach of Clause 8 of unified access service licences

Action by PMO

• December 1, 2008: The prime minister peruses the letter and notes: “Please examine and let me know the facts of this case”.
   
• December 11, 2008: PMO sends a copy of the letter to the telecommunications secretary for a factual report. 
   
• April 30, 2009: A note proposing to send the complaint to the Department of Legal Affairs is prepared. 
   
• May 5, 2009: Another note is prepared. It says the opinion of the law ministry should be sought to see “whether there was any ground at all for considering such a request”.

SWAMY’S LETTER
May 30, 2009:

Swamy’s second letter seeks to know what transpired at the hearing of a PIL in the Delhi High Court by one Aravind Gupta. Swamy says, the alleged oral observations in the PIL constitute a judicial opinion.

Action by PMO

• June 6, 2009: PM endorses the letter, says: “Please examine and discuss”. 
   
• June 19, 2009: Director of the telecom section prepares a note, saying A Raja has replied to Swamy on June 18, 2009. Meanwhile, another note is prepared suggesting the reply of the Department of Legal Affairs is awaited.

SWAMY’S LETTER
October 23, 2009 and October 31, 2009:

Two more letters are received. The first notes that CBI has raided Sanchar Bhawan and alleges: “This makes it amply clear that the minister had committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for which your sanction for prosecuting the minister has been left to be only a formality”.
The second letter says if sanction is not granted by November 15, 2009, he would approach the courts.

Action by PMO

• October 27, 2009: PM endorses the first letter and seeks discussion in PMO. 
   
• November 4, 2009: PM endorses the second for examination. 
   
• November 18, 2009: PMO sends the letters to the Ministry of Law. 
   
• February 2, 2010: The law ministry replies that as Swamy is relying on the investigation and action of CBI, the decision on sanction prosecution may be determined only after the perusal of the evidence collected by CBI. PMO asks the law ministry to reply to Swamy and, on March 5, 2010, PMO asks DoPT to reply to Swamy.

SWAMY’S LETTER
March 8, 2010, and March 13, 2010:

The two letters say CVC has written to the communications ministry and CBI has registered a case.

Action by PMO

• March 18, 2010: PMO asks DoPT to send an appropriate reply at an appropriate level. 
   
• March 19, 2010: DoPT replies to Swamy.

SWAMY'S LETTER 
March 20, 2010; May 20, 2010; June 9, 2010; August 30, 2010; October 5, 2010:
(to the PM, Law Ministry, DoPT)

Action by PMO

• In the five letters, PMO finds nothing new. Excerpts of the letter dated October 5, 2010, are sent to the Department of Telecommunications to seek the status of CAG report.