( Word to PDF Converter - Unregistered ) http://www.Word-to-PDF-Converter.
net The implicit support/refusal of the Prime Ministers Office to address concerns As recently as last month, the Supreme Court asked the solicitor general why the prime minister had not responded to the representation by the opposition to sanction proceedings against Raja. Already in an awkward situation over the oppositions unrelenting demand for a statement on the 2G spectrum allocation scandal, prime minister Manmohan Singh faced more when the Supreme Court questioned the delay in action and silence on a complaint from Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking the prosecution of former telecom minister A Raja. Swamy had written to the prime minister in November 2008, but the reply from the prime ministers office came only in October, 2010. According to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court, the prime ministers office should have replied within three months (as per the guidelines set up in the judgement issued in connection with the Vineet Narain hawala case) (the reply had come close to 2 years after the letter being sent). The court also expressed dissatisfaction over the language used by the prime ministers office in the reply to Mr. Swamys letter. The reply said the plea was premature and an investigation was being carried out by the CBI. The court also pointed out that the letter sent by Mr. Swamy had specific information on the allegations and was not a vague assertion of alleged wrong doing. The bench asked the solicitor general whether the papers submitted by Mr. Swamy were ever placed before the sanctioning authority. A noted constitutional lawyer feels the courts observations would not lead to any meaningful replies to petitioner Swamy, who has already said theres no need for the sanction (Mr. Swamy had said that since A. Raja had resigned, sanction was not needed to prosecute him). But, another lawyer, Colin Gonsalves, feels that the bench, which is also hearing another petition by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) seeking a probe into the Rs1.76 lakh crore 2G scam by a special investigating team, might ask the government about the action taken against the minister and others allegedly involved in the scandal. Answering the courts queries, the government argued that the permission of the PM was not necessary to file a complaint against Mr. Raja as it would be required only if the court took cognizance of such complaint. It also argued that since no complaint was actually filed, the question of permission does not arise at all. The Supreme Court has observed that there is no proof of intent by either the PM or the PMO to block Mr. Swamys complaint. Mr. Swamy backtracked from his earlier stand by filing an affidavit saying that there was no delay that had been caused by the PMO in replying to his petition seeking sanction for commencing prosecution against Mr. A. Raja. Appointment of allegedly corrupt bureaucrats to key responsible positions Following a judgement of the Supreme Court and consequent amendment of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) is appointed by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition
( Word to PDF Converter - Unregistered ) http://www.Word-to-PDF-Converter.net in the Lok Sabha. Overruling the objections of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government chose Mr Thomas who is named as an accused in the palmolein import scandal in Kerala and whose conduct as Telecom Secretary till recently will warrant scrutiny in the light of the 2G Spectrum revelations. (To give a brief background of the palmolein scandal, Mr. Thomas was the secretary of the Food and Civil Supplies department and a member of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation which signed the deal to import palmolein from a Malaysian company Power and Energy Limited. He was one of the accused in the scandal whose chief accused was the then Chief Minister of Kerala, Mr. K. Karunakaran (who belonged to the Congress party)). The appointment of Mr. Thomas as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner has prompted several eminent citizens like Mr. J.M.Lyngdoh (former Chief Election Commissioner) to knock on the doors of the Supreme Court seeking the annulment of his appointment as CVC. The case is currently pending in the Supreme Court with the honourable court recently asking the government to justify the appointment of Mr. Thomas as CVC (especially since a chargesheet is pending against him). As Telecom Secretary, he is alleged to have opposed inquiries by the CVC and the CAG into the allotment of 2G Spectrum licences. These actions by Mr. Thomas have cast doubt on the credibility of the probed that is being conducted by the CVC into the 2G spectrum scandal.
The 2G spectrum scandal has been the centre of media focus for the past few weeks. Although it has come into the spotlight now, the problem started 3 years back when A. Raja took over as the telecommunications minister. The issue dates to 2007 when nine telecom companies (Tata Tele, Idea Cellular, Loop Telecom, Spice, Shyam Telelink, Datacom, Stel, Swan Telecom and Unitech) were issued scarce airwaves and licences for second generation (2G) mobile phone services at Rs.1,658 crore (less that $350 million) for a pan-India operation. As many as 122 circle-wise licences were issued. Now, the major problems with the issue of these licences are as follows: The licences were given away on a first-come-first-serve basis and not auctioned off (despite the scarcity of the spectrum and the high demand for the licences) These licences were given away at throwaway prices The cut-off date for the applications was advanced, allegedly to favour some entities There are allegations of collusion between the Ministers office and some bidders Some of the allotments were made to companies which did not have the experience and expertise in telecom
( Word to PDF Converter - Unregistered ) http://www.Word-to-PDF-Converter.net 1. A new player, Swan Telecom, bought licences for 13 circles with the necessary spectrum for $340 million but managed to sell a 45-percent stake in the company to UAEs Etisalat for $900 million. This swelled its valuation to $2 billion without a single subscriber 2. Another new player, Unitech, paid $365 million as licence fee but sold a 60-percent stake to Norways Talenor for $1.36 billion, taking its valuation to nearly $2 billion, again without a single subscriber 3. Similarly, another licensor, Datacom, later became Videocon Mobile and Stel now has large stake by Baharian Telecom The exchequer has lost billions of dollars due to the manner of granting the licences on a first-come-first-serve basis rather than their being auctioned off. To put it into perspective, the auction of the 3G spectrum last year earned the government approximately $15 billion and the auction of wireless broadband access fetched over $8.5 billion. The total loss to the exchequer which was initially estimated at INR 70,000 crores (~ $15 billion) has now been pegged closer to INR 1,76,000 crores (~ $37 billion) What has further added to the controversy was the defence presented by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the then telecom minister A. Raja had taken a decision which was in line with a policy that was already in place and that none of the norms were flouted. The final blow came after the Comptroller and Auditor General of India said the entire process of spectrum allocation was undertaken in an arbitrary manner and that the advise of the industry watchdog was ignored and misused. The Central Vigilance Commission and the Income Tax Department also began investigations because prima facie there appeared to be a case of corruption and favouritism. The government agencies taped alleged conversations between the Minister and a lobbyist indicating that the entire licensing procedure had been vitiated. There were also alleged leads about possible kickbacks being deposited in tax havens and ploughed back into the country. The issues covered in this post are the central issues of the controversy. This controversy has raised several other issues: The implicit support/refusal of the Prime Ministers Office in this issue Appointment of allegedly corrupt bureaucrats to key responsible positions Alleged bias of the media in reporting the current issue as well as other issue (and/or role of media in covering up the issue in previous years)
