Prosecution sanction: Govt seeks review of 2G scam ruling | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 21, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Prosecution sanction: Govt seeks review of 2G scam ruling

Government on Thursday moved the Supreme Court seeking review of one of its 2G-spectrum scam ruling that sanction for prosecution of a public servant in a corruption case can be sought even before filing of a complaint.

delhi Updated: Mar 02, 2012 01:43 IST
HT Correspondent

Government on Thursday moved the Supreme Court seeking review of one of its 2G-spectrum scam ruling that sanction for prosecution of a public servant in a corruption case can be sought even before filing of a complaint.

A bench headed by justice GS Singhvi had on January 31 upheld the right of a private citizen to seek sanction for prosecution of a public servant for corruption.

Rejecting Attorney General GE Vahanvati's arguments, it had held that Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy had the locus standi to seek sanction.

The SC had indicted PMO officials, saying those who were "duty-bound" to apprise the Prime Minister about the "seriousness" of the allegations to enable him to take appropriate decision in the matter "failed" to do so.

Seeking review of the verdict which blamed the Prime Minister's office (PMO) for sitting on the plea to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for granting sanction to prosecute former telecom minister A Raja in the 2G scam, the government contended that "the question of sanction gets attracted only at the stage of cognizance after filing of complaint".

The Centre, however, clarified that it was not challenging the findings in the judgment on the locus but was only seeking review for the "limited extent of correcting certain errors apparent in the judgment" as the remarks were also made against the officers of PMO who were not party to the litigation.

This included "the observations made by this court regarding certain unnamed officers of the PMO without them being parties to the lis (a litigation)," it said. The Centre pointed out errors in the judgment relating to the "scope of scrutiny by the competent authority of the request for sanction for prosecution."