Allocation debate cost two house sessions, says SC
Taking judicial note of the controversy surrounding the allocation of natural resources, the Supreme Court on Thursday said it was a matter of “extensive” debate that led to the “washout” of two Parliament sessions.
Justice JS Khehar, who wrote a separate but concurring opinion on the presidential reference arising out of the court’s February 2, 2012, verdict cancelling 122 2G licences, said the CAG's computation of losses in the 2G spectrum scam and coal block allocation, and the subsequent debate, could have been the reasons behind the government filing a presidential reference to seek the court’s opinion on ways to allocate natural resources.
“But it does seem that the presidential reference is aimed at invoking this court’s advisory jurisdiction to iron out the creases, so that legal and constitutional parameters are correctly understood,” Justice Khehar said.
“One is compelled to take judicial notice of the fact that allotment of natural resources is an issue of extensive debate in the country, so much so that the issue of allocation of such resources had recently resulted in a washout of two sessions of Parliament,” he added.
It, however, refused to be drawn into the political debate by saying, “This court is not, and should never be seen to be, a part of that debate.”
Justice Khehar also said the government was aware of the fact that disposal of some natural resources has to be done only through auction.