Author: Editorial
Publication: The Statesman
Date: August 27, 2012
URL: http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=421393:edits&catid=38:editorial

2G verdict defies logic

WHEN the Supreme Court gives a verdict we respect it.  But that does not take away from us the right to seek answers to unexplained questions. Dismissing petitions filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation through advocate Prashant Bhushan, a Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and KS Radhakrishnan held that Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram had no role to play in fixing the 2G spectrum allocation price. A Cabinet note dated 31 October 2003, which is still in force, says that the Finance Minister and the Telecom Minister would decide on spectrum pricing.

Chidambaram met Telecom Minister A Raja on 30 January 2008, and finalised spectrum charges, and their decision was communicated to the Prime Minister. The Bench observes that Raja’s view (of sticking to the 2001 price) was “not overturned even by the PMO.” Therefore, the allegation against Chidambaram was unfounded. The trial court concluded that Chidambaram was party to two decisions: keeping the spectrum price at the 2001 level and allowing dilution of equity of Swan Telecom and Unitech Wireless. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a public servant taking any decision opposed to public interest, with or without mens rea, is bound to be held accountable. While deciding a case against Runu Ghosh, who was director of telecommunications when Sukh Ram was minister, the Delhi High Court ruled recently that when a public servant’s decision exhibits complete and manifest disregard to public interest with the corresponding result of a third party obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, he is fastened with responsibility of criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as it does not require proof of intent, because “what Parliament intended was to punish public servants for acts which were without public interest.”

In the present case, the Supreme Court denied there was any conspiracy charge against Chidambaram simply because he held a meeting with Raja prior to spectrum allocation. Conspiracy is a grey area in criminal law, especially in white-collar crimes. In the famous Harshad Mehta case, the Court had observed: “An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to the community.” When an economic crime is committed in a calm and collected manner, it becomes very difficult even for the best of investigating agencies to determine the role played by various parties. Some may have connived actively; others passively. In the Parliament attack case, the Court observed that conspiracy was mostly proved by circumstantial evidence, “usually both the existence of conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.”    Chidambaram is yet to explain why he went along with Raja in spectrum price fixing.

It is abundantly clear his ministry wanted market-based pricing, but he went along with Raja. After it was all over, in mid-January 2008, Chidambaram advocated auctions for the future. Obviously, he did not do what he believed in when he had the opportunity and power to stop Raja. The special court verdict conceded that Chidambaram agreed that spectrum in 2008 could be priced at the rates fixed in 2001 and that he told Raja “there is no need to revisit the same.” Yet the Supreme Court says “no case was made out to interfere with the special court’s 4 February order.” Given the facts and circumstances of the case, only a free and fair investigation would reveal whether Chidambaram was a victim of vilification or villain of the piece.

‘NO KIDDING’
Dhoni & Co, were upstaged

AS the old saying goes, “every day is not Sunday”: still, it was a truly heart-warming Sunday for Indian cricket’s frenzied fans. After disastrous tours of Australia and England, any Test match victory would have been more than satisfactory, particularly since the rock-solid Dravid and Laxman were not in the squad, and even if the New Zealanders were never expected to master India’s spinners on their home tracks. Yet even as they regaled in their innings victory at Hyderabad, Dhoni and his men accepted that the glory of the day belonged to the Under-19 team that claimed their edition of the World Cup.

 For while “history” favoured the Test side, the odds were stacked against the teenagers ~ the Australians were playing in home conditions (fortunately Indian teams are never short of enthusiastic supporters, anywhere), they were the title-holders, and had never lost a World Cup final. What made victory all the more impressive for the “juniors” ~ Unmukt Chand, Smit Patel, Baba Aparajith, Sandeep Sharma and Harmeet Singh have overnight become household names ~ was that the tournament had “tested” them all the way. The final match swung one way, then the other. After initial strikes the bowling went the familiar Indian way, loss of sting, so it was a competitive score the batters had to chase down. But continuing in the same courageous vein that had led him to opt for bowling first, skipper Unmukt led from the front most authoritatively. His match-winning century was put together with professional maturity, he did not attack blindly, nursed the batsmen at the other end without trying to dominate them. The capacity to fight their way out of potential trouble has made this successful Under-19 team (this was not its maiden win) so very impressive. Indeed their seniors might find inspiration in that capacity.