Special CBI Judge Vinod Kumar allowed the agency's plea and posted the matter for May 1 in the case registered for allegedly facilitating "wrongful" gain of Rs 578 crore to private multi-media company Devas by Antrix, ISRO's commercial arm.
The court deferred the matter after the CBI submitted that it is yet to obtain sanctions under 197 CrPC from authorities concerned to prosecute former senior ISRO officials.
The CBI had on August 11 last year charged Nair and senior space department officials with causing a loss of Rs 578 crore to the exchequer by abusing their official position to favour the private company.
It was alleged in the FIR that the lease was given in violation of rules causing undue gain of Rs 578 crore to Devas Multimedia and corresponding loss to the exchequer.
The charge sheet had named the then Secretary Department of Space, Chairman ISRO and Antrix Corporation G Madhavan Nair, Devas Multimedia and seven others and accused them of criminal conspiracy, cheating and offences under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Former Additional Secretary in the Department of Space Veena S Rao, the then Director in ISRO A Bhaskar Narayana Rao and two directors of Devas Multimedia D Venugopal and M Umesh have also been named in the charge sheet as accused.
The CBI has alleged that the government officials abused
their position to favour Devas by giving them rights for delivery of videos, multimedia content and information services to mobile phones using S-Band through GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A satellites and terrestrial systems in India.
The agency has said a deal between Antrix and Devas was fixed in principle in January 2005 for lease of S-Band transponders.
However, the then Executive Director of Antrix signed it six months later only after ensuring that Chandrashekhar and Vishwanathan became majority stakeholders in Devas. They continued in that position till 2009.
The change in the board, where a US company represented by Chandrashekhar and Vishwanathan had majority stakes, was never verified by Antrix as the agreement had been in violation of Shankara Committee recommendations which said execution of any such agreement should be entered into with an Indian company alone, it was contended.
The FIR in the case was filed on March 16, 2015.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
