2G spectrum Case Study
Beginning of the Case
A.Raja communication and IT minister in the year 2007-2009 government of congress. He allocates 122 licences of 2G spectrum in the year 2008 with the fixed price option and he made a condition which favors some telecom companies. He sold the licence with a very low price and without any rules and regulations. He reduces the deadline of application of 2G spectrum 01.10.2007 to 05.09.2007 due to the reduction of date so many companies did not apply for 2G spectrum and on the date of issuing the licence that is 10.01.2008 he gave only some hours to the companies for the submission of the cheque and other documents. The companies which were favored by the Raja were ready with their cheque and other documents. On 16.11.2010 comptroller and auditor general of India gave their report and tell Raja did not take any advice from Law and Finance ministry.
What are the Charges on Former Telecom Minister A Raja
Cheap Telecom Licenses
Entry fee for 2G spectrum licenses 2008 pegged at 2001 prices mobile subscriber base had shot up to 350 million in 2008 from 4 million in 2001.
No Procedures Followed
Rules changed by the A.Raja before beginning the 2G Spectrum.
The date of application reduces 25 days.
Licenses issued on a fixed price basis.
No proper auction process followed.
Raja ignored the advice of TRAI, Law Ministry, Finance Ministry.
TRAI had recommended auctioning of the spectrum at market rates.
Raja among 12 named in 2G Scam Charge Sheet
Raja, his own secretary R K Chandolia, previous telecom secretary Siddharth Behura and previous MD of Swan Telecom Shahid Usman Balwa are among the 12 people and organizations charge-sheeted by the CBI in the 2G Scam.
The charge sheet, running into 127 pages and having 88,000 annexure, was documented on Saturday under the steady gaze of judge O P Saini in the exceptional court set up for the 2G case. The organization has likewise recorded three corporate majors – Reliance Telecom, Swan Telecom, and Unitech Wireless – that supposedly profited by the preference appeared by Raja in range distribution.
Dependence Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group’s (ADAG) overseeing chief Gautam Doshi, bunch president Surendra Pipara and VP Hari Nair have additionally been named as blamed alongside Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and Swan executive Vinod Goenka. While Raja, Chandolia, Behura and Balwa are in a correctional facility, the corporate honchos have been asked by the judge to show up under the watchful eye of the court on April 13.
The denounced have been reserved for criminal connivance, deceiving, imitation and under different segments of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Raja and the two other community workers, Chandolia and Behura, have additionally been accused of abuse of authority position. In the charge sheet, the CBI has given a well-ordered detail of how Raja, in trick with the other blamed, caused lost Rs 30,984 crore to the state exchequer.
The CBI has affirmed that in May 2007, not long after Raja took over as telecom serve, he designated Chandolia and Behura, who was known to him, in a similar division with an expectation to incubate criminal connivance. “… Raja went into the trick with other denounced people and organizations with a reason to issue UAS licenses to Swan (as the MD, Balwa, was known to him) and furthermore to organizations advanced by Unitech, by controlling the need list based on letter of plan compliances as opposed to existing rules/routine with regards to choosing applications based on date of utilizations according to accessibility of the range,” the charge sheet peruses.
Raja even disregarded the law service’s feeling and proceeded with the slice off dates so as to help Swan and Unitech. Managing the infringement of the primary start things out serve premise strategy, the charge sheet says it was re-imagined to profit the corporate denounced.
Role of CAG in the Case
This report for the year finished March 2010 has been set up for accommodation to the President under Article 151 of the Constitution. The report contains the consequences of the assessment by Audit of the Issue of Licenses and Allocation of 2G Spectrum of Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. The review covers the period from 2003-04 to 2009-10.
Telecom Commission was not Consulted
From an investigation of the records and data made accessible it gives the idea that the High Powered Telecom Commission which additionally incorporates low maintenance individuals from the Ministry of Finance, Industry, IT and Planning Commission was not notified of the TRAI proposals of August 2007 and consequently, was not managed a chance to ponder on the benefits of the TRAI suggestions. It is likewise observed that the High Powered Telecom Commission was not counselled at the season of award of 122 UAS licenses in 2008.
What the Court said in its Verdict?
An extraordinary CBI court on Thursday vindicated each of the 18 denounced including A Raja and K Kanimozhi in 2G range assignment case. The trick became exposed very nearly seven years prior when the Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG in a report considered then Telecom Minister A Raja in charge of causing the state exchequer lost Rs 1,76,379 crore by dispensing 2G range licenses at disposable costs. Yet, today the court found that the indictment neglected to demonstrate the charges. This decision, notwithstanding, doesn’t abrogate the Supreme Court judgment or detract from the way that the licenses issued during 2G range distribution were unlawful.
The charge sheet of the moment case depends for the most part on a misreading, specific perusing, non-perusing and outside the realm of relevance perusing of the official record, Special Judge OP Saini said in his decision. The charge sheet depends on some oral proclamations made by the observers during the examination, which the observers have not possessed up in the observer box, Special Judge included.