Dragging the name of then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to nail former Telecom Minister A Raja earned the CBI the wrath of the special 2G court, which lashed out at the agency for trying to “prejudice” the court by dropping the PM’s name. But then, the court minced no words in holding former PMO officials Pulok Chatterjee and TKA Nair responsible for misrepresenting facts to and suppressing them from Singh.
The CBI had alleged that Raja had misled Singh in his letters on several key issues related to the policy of grant of 2G spectrum licences, including first-come-first-served and the cut-off date. “It was not A Raja, but Pulok Chatterjee, in consultation with T K A Nair, as he had suppressed the most relevant and controversial part of the letter of A Raja from the then Prime Minister,” Special CBI Judge O P Saini said while acquitting all accused in three separate 2G spectrum cases.
“I do not find any merit in submission of the prosecution that the Hon'ble Prime Minister was either misled by A. Raja or that the facts were misrepresented to him. The arguments have been taken up by the prosecution just to prejudice the mind of the Court by invoking the high name and authority of Hon'ble Prime Minister of the country,” underlined Special Judge OP Saini in his verdict while reproaching the CBI for basing its case on “conjectures and speculations alone”.
“If a Minister writes directly to the Prime Minister, that does not by itself mean that Prime Minister would be misled. There is no material on record indicating that a Minister cannot directly write to the Prime Minister,” the order said.
Referring to a note by Pulok Chatterjee, who was then Principal Secretary to PM, the court said it was lengthier than Raja's letter to the prime minister. “Prime Minister is a busy executive. Wherefrom would he find time to read such lengthy notes. Prime Minister is not expected to be immersed in files. It was much easier and better for him to read and understand the letter of A Raja rather than this note of Pulok Chatterjee,” it said.
On the Pulok Chatterjee's note, the court further said that it discussed only the spectrum-related issues and did not at all consider the issue of new licences, which were to be issued as per the changed criteria from the date of application to the date of payment and was also the most controversial one. It said that it was not clear from the record whether the note was seen by the then prime minister or not. “However, it is clear that somebody from the PMO had given a go ahead to the DoT for issue of new licences and most probably it was Pulok Chatterjee himself, as his note records that he had spoken to Secretary (T),” the court said.
According to the prosecution, Raja had written two letters to then PM Singh wherein he asserted his authority to process applications as per the existing policy and also rejected the law Ministry's opinion to constitute an EGoM to decide upon the procedure to accept applications and grant licences.
The court held that Raja was not the “mother lode of conspiracy” and he “cannot be faulted” for misrepresentation of facts to then PM Manmohan Singh. The court held that Raja's deposition matched with the official record and appeared to be cogent, truthful and acceptable. “There is no material on record to show that Raja was mother lode of conspiracy in the instant case. There is also no evidence of his noholdsbarred immersion in any wrongdoing, conspiracy or corruption,” the court said.
The judge said it was clear that complete facts were not placed before the then prime minister by his own office for which Raja could not be faulted and senior officials at the PMO had “suppressed the most relevant and controversial part” of Raja's letter.
The court also held that the CBI had no evidence at all to claim that the DMK leader tried to mislead the then PM regarding the cut-off date to accept applications for the 2G spectrum licences, and also with respect to an opinion by the law Ministry to let the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) take a call on the procedure.
“The law Minister desired the matter to be referred to EGoM, but Raja was opposed to it and conveyed it to the Hon'ble Prime Minister. Now the question is when the letter was duly discussed and considered by the Hon'ble PM, and no one from the PMO has been examined as a witness nor the relevant files with processing notes have been produced before the court.
How can one say that the facts were misrepresented or that the Hon'ble Prime Minister was misled regarding the opinion of law Minister for referring the matter to EGoMIJ” asked the court.