The Supreme Court on Wednesday came to the rescue of former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran by staying his arrest in the illegal telephone exchange case till September 14.Finding that the CBI was already present in the court defended by Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, the court spared no words to criticise the seriousness shown by the agency to move the court in a matter involving a former Minister charged of causing a loss of around `2 crore to the exchequer at a time when over 200 accused in the `8,000-crore National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam are yet not arrested. The scam involved a Central Government scheme in which crores of rupees meant to provide healthcare facilities in rural areas was siphoned off by politicians, bureaucrats and doctors in Uttar Pradesh.
“It’s a telephone misuse by somebody who occupied office as a Minister. Why do you want his custody unless there is some other purpose for arresting himIJ CBI should arrest a person for purpose of aiding investigation and not for political vendetta,” said a Bench of Justices TS Thakur, V Gopala Gowda and R Banumathi.
Rohatgi informed the court there was no attempt to fix Maran. He pointed out that the case against Maran was of conspiracy to benefit his family business Sun TV while he was Minister from May 26, 2004 to May 17, 2007. The A-G explained that multiple telephone connections along with an internet transmission line was illegally installed at Maran’s Chennai residence that was used for commercial purpose by Sun TV. No bills were raised as the connection was obtained in the name of BSNl. Assessment of loss so far was `1 crore but this could increase, Rohatgi added.
But the Bench felt that instead of arresting the Minister, the CBI should have arrested the General Manager of BSNl at Chennai, also an accused in the case and obtain information from other BSNl officials how these connections were installed. “For two years the case is hanging and you have not arrested the general manager. Why are you making it a matter of prestige to arrest him (Maran).”Maran’s lawyer Shyam Divan submitted that at best it was a monetary claim which his client was willing to settle.