The CBI on Wednesday opposed Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy's plea, seeking his appointment as prosecutor in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case, saying it was "not tenable in law" and not "worth acceptable".
The agency told special judge O P Saini that Swamy's submission, regarding clubbing of his private complaint with the CBI's case, is not in the interest of justice and his complaint may be dealt with separately. CBI also said that Swamy's allegation, regarding possession of disproportionate assets by former Telecom Minister A Raja, the prime accused in the 2G case and issues relating to the national security aspect, is not directly related to this case.
"In his complaint dated December 15, 2010, Swamy also alleged commission of offence of possessions of disproportionate assets by accused A Raja and issues relating to national security." "These issues are separate and not directly related to 2G spectrum case, for which this exclusive court has been constituted," CBI said.
Opposing Swamy's prayer that he be appointed a public prosecutor in the case, CBI said that it is the prerogative of the central government and as directed by the Supreme Court, the government has already appointed senior advocate U U Lalit as the special public prosecutor in the case.
"The said prayer of Swamy to appoint him as special public prosecutor and direct the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and other prosecuting agencies of the government to assist him in conducting the case is, therefore, not tenable in law and is not worth acceptable," CBI said in its four page reply.
It further said that the private complaint of Swamy should not be clubbed with the agency's case as "all the offences discussed in complaint case are not included in the police (CBI) case." "Conditions precedent to the clubbing of complaint case and police case together are not present in the instant matter. Clubbing of both the cases is not in the interest of justice. The complaint of Swamy may be dealt with separately as per the law," the agency said.
The court, however, posted the matter for further proceedings on May 18 after Swamy sought some time to argue on this.