PMO files affidavit in Supreme Court
An officer in the prime minister’s office (PMO) on Saturday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court denying inaction on the part of Manmohan Singh regarding the request of Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy to sanction prosecution of former telecommunication minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum scam.
The affidavit stated that Swamy himself wrote in his letter to the prime minister that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed a first information report regarding the allegations and the matter was “under investigation”. If that is so, the decision to accord sanction for prosecution may be determined only after examining the evidence collected by CBI, the government stated.
This affidavit will come up before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. It is learnt that Attorney General G E Vahanvati will argue the case from now on, though it was handled by Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium till now.
A bench consisting of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice A K Ganguly is hearing the appeal of Swamy for sanction to prosecute A Raja under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under Section 13 of the Act, sanction is necessary to prosecute a public servant. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had dismissed Swamy’s petition.
The 11-page affidavit was filed through V Vidyavati, a director in PMO. She narrated the step-by-step action taken by the prime minister since Swamy’s first letter of November 29, 2008 was received in PMO. The letter made various allegations against Swan Telecom and Unitech and breach of guidelines of the Unified Access Licences of 2005.
After reading the letter on December 1, the prime minister noted, “Please examine and let me know the facts of this case.” It was marked to the principal secretary who marked it to the secretary. The latter referred it to Vidyavati. She summarised the allegations and sent it to the people in PMO dealing with telecommunications. On December 11, Swamy’s letter was sent to the department of telecommunications (DoT) seeking its comments. DoT replied on February 13, 2009.
Swamy sent a second letter, which was received by PMO on May 30, 2009. On June 1, the prime minister endorsed the letter, “Please examine and discuss.” On June 19, the director dealing with the section prepared a note in which it was recorded that the minister for telecommunication had replied to Swamy’s letter.
Two more letters were received from Swamy, dated October 23 and October 31, 2009. The first letter referred to CBI raids in Sanchar Bhavan, allegedly confirming his charges against the minister. In the second letter, he referred to the FIR filed by CBI and stated that a detailed enquiry was not necessary. He also warned that if sanction was not granted by November 15, he would approach the courts. The prime minister endorsed the first letter noting “Please discuss” and the second one “Please examine” and referred them to the principal secretary.
On November 18, both the letters were discussed with the prime minister and it was decided to get the opinion of the law ministry. On February 8, 2010, the law ministry’s opinion was received by PMO. According to it, Swamy wanted to rely upon the investigation and action of CBI to strengthen his charges. If that was so, the decision to sanction prosecution of the minister should await the collection of evidence by CBI. An appropriate response based on this view was approved by the prime minister on February 13.
Vidyavati then prepared a note on March 5 to the department of personnel as it was concerned with sanction and not to the law ministry whose role was advisory. Meanwhile, Swamy wrote two more letters dated March 8 and March 13, 2010, stating that the central vigilance commissioner had written to Raja about the matter and CBI had filed a case. These were referred to the department of personnel on March 17 and on the same day it responded to the letters. All these were presented before the prime minister’s private secretary.
Meanwhile, Swamy moved the Delhi High Court for sanction. He sent several more letters to the prime minister and the concerned departments. All these have been cited in the affidavit to refute the charge that the prime minister did not take action for 16 months.
