CBI gives Raja & Co reasons to smile

suchithkc

Former union minister A Raja and his associates may have reasons to smile.

The first chargesheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI) in the 2G case does not seem to have taken the case forward, mainly reproducing what had already come into the public domain through the Comptroller and Auditor General ( CAG) and the Justice Shivraj V Patil committee reports.

The CBI has heavily relied on documents to show mala fide intentions on part of the accused but has left some major gaps unplugged.

Interestingly, the first reaction on the charge- sheet came from the accused themselves. Raja and Shahid Balwa mocked the CBI in the court itself for not coming up with anything new in the charge- sheet.

Though the CBI claimed that it was probing the matter in coordination with the Enforcement Directorate ( ED), it had not directly traced any big money trail. So much so, that the ED — which is empowered to attach properties after the filing of the charge- sheet in a case — does not have much to confiscate in the scam.

In backdrop of the fact that Raja has been contending that he had acted in furtherance of the government policy, it was somewhat necessary to show direct quid pro quo to invoke penal provisions against him.

More so, when the government seemingly had no objections to the manner in which he finally went about the allotments.

The CBI may have cited objections and suggestions to the contrary from various government departments but when it comes to a government decision all this could well be considered to be a part of the decision making process.

In fact, the government, in its affidavit filed before the Supreme Court over a year after the registration of the FIR, submitted that the issue of “ allotment’’ and “ pricing’’ of spectrum could not be subjected to scrutiny as it fell in the “ domain of executive policy making’’. The CBI has built up its case by stating that Raja had manipulated the policy to further his conspiracy but it has hardly proved that other departments had been kept in the dark with regard to most of his decisions.

On the changes with regard to the cut- off date to help his favourites, the CBI has stated the law ministry had sought a decision by the Group of Ministers ( GoM). It has at the same time admitted that this fact was not hidden from the Prime Minister.

In fact, Raja brought this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister.

The charge- sheet states that Raja “ misled’’ the PM by stating that the opinion by the law ministry was “ out of context’’. Raja could, thus, claim that it was a collective decision despite some dissent.

With regard to Raja tweaking the first- comefirst- served policy, the agency has stated that he manipulated the controversial press release after obtaining the approval of the then Solicitor General G E Vahanvati. The charge- sheet, however, records that Raja wrote to the Prime Minister claiming that “ the same has been concurred by the Solicitor General of India during discussions’’. It was imperative on part of the CBI to prove to the contrary but the investigation in this regard seems to be inconclusive.

Instead of emphatically stating that its probe had revealed that there was no such discussion between Raja and Vahanvati, the CBI went on to state that “ investigation has not revealed any discussions’’. The agency has further stressed that several companies were not eligible for licence on the date of application. In what could go in favour of Raja and telecom officials, the CBI has stated that Reliance officials had misinformed the DoT when it sought “ clarifications’’. The agency is silent on Vahanvati’s opinion that had preempted a probe against Swan.

This was despite the fact that the accused were likely to rely on it during trial. The agency has charged Raja with cheating the government exchequer by non- revision of entry fee but has failed to make out a strong case.

Getting into the sermonising mode, the CBI said a decision in this regard “ warranted a thoughtful reconsideration’’. Raja should have looked at the growth in the telecom sector and should have consulted the finance ministry, it said.