Despite all-round clamour for the ouster of telecom minister A. Raja from the UPA government to ensure fair and impartial probe into the 2G scam case, the department of telecom under his command does not think that the minister’s continuation in the office would hamper the CBI investigation.
This important fact has emerged from the 47-page affidavit of DoT, filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The affidavit even suggested that there was no need for monitoring of the CBI investigation by the top court.
The DoT even did not think that the spectrum controversy had thrown up a “rare or extraordinary” situation that called for the judicial intervention at this stage.
“The legal position is well-settled that courts will not interfere with or monitor investigations except in rare and extraordinary circumstances, where materials on record would clearly establish that (for example) witnesses are being threatened, evidence is being destroyed or the investigation is not being done in a proper manner. That is not the situation in the instant case,” the affidavit said, justifying every action of the minister in the allotment of spectrum 2G licences.
While defending the “competence” of the CBI to investigate such cases, DoT said even in the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioners were not able to point out any specific “deficiency” in the probe as they only bad made a “vague and defamatory allegation that the CBI has had a reputation of being pliant to the government at the Centre.”
“Such an allegation can never form the basis for the Supreme Court to monitor the investigation of the CBI. It is therefore respectfully submitted that on the above ground alone, this SLP should be dismissed,” DoT said, adding “the allotment and pricing of spectrum falls squarely in the domain of executive policy-making, in which the scope of judicial review is highly restricted.”
The department said that the FIR registered by the CBI under Section 120-B of the IPC (for criminal conspiracy) and Sections 13(2) and 13(1(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against certain “unknown officials of DoT, unknown private persons/companies and others” therefore, did not require investigation under the supervision of the court. DoT has cited the Delhi high court verdict, declining to interfere in the matter on the plea of the same petitioners.