SC seeks Raja response on CAG report on 2G scam
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to respond to a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report pointing out large-scale irregularities allegedly by telecom minister A Raja in connection with the R70,000-crore 2G spectrum allocation scam.delhi Updated: Oct 09, 2010 00:20 IST
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to respond to a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report pointing out large-scale irregularities allegedly by telecom minister A Raja in connection with the R70,000-crore 2G spectrum allocation scam.
The CAG’s draft report alleged that the ministry of telecom ignored the advice of the law ministry and the Prime Minister and allotted the license by favouring “ineligible” companies at the lower rate on first-cum-first-serve basis by arbitrarily deciding the cut-off date. According to the report, the scam caused a loss of R1.40 lakh crore to the exchequer.
A bench headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi asked Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to go through the report and posted the matter for further hearing on October 22.
The court did not peruse the status reports filed by CBI and Enforcement Directorate on the probe into the 2008 scam and returned the reports, saying it would consider them on the next date.
It also ordered that a copy of the report be given to Raja, who was represented by senior advocate T.R. Andhyarujina.
Earlier, Subramanium assured the court the probe would be conducted in a fair manner and sought six months for completing it as more than one agency were involved in it.
He said transcripts of the tape involving telephonic conversation between several persons, including corporate lobbyist Nira Radia and some journalists, had to be examined.
However, petitioner Centre for Public Interest litigation’s counsel Prashant Bhushan alleged the probe by the CBI was not fair as even after registration of an FIR a year ago, none of the persons had been interrogated or arrested.
He said neither Raja nor Radia had been interrogated and the Income Tax officer, who was handling the case and was co-ordinating with CBI, had been transferred.