SC CLEARS SANCTION HURDLE FOR THE CBI
Friday, 02 August 2013 | Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Giving a go-by to the single directive rule in court-monitored cases, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the CBI not to await sanction from the Centre against a senior official involved in the Aircel-Maxis deal and ordered the chargesheet to be filed in two months.
The order could well be a precedent for other court-monitored cases such as Coalgate where the Government has been sitting on sanction requests from the probe agency. Single directive provided under Section 6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act acts as a bar for CBI to prosecute officers above Joint Secretary rank, the court held.
“Under court monitored investigation, you (CBI) don’t require sanction under Section 6A,” the court stated and ordered that CBI will not be “inhibited” for investigation of any person for want of sanction or otherwise. Clearing the hurdle of sanction was not enough as the court monitoring the 2G cases noted how the agency was slack in pursuing investigations against Maxis, the Malaysian-based company which purchased Aircel which fast-tracked award of spectrum to the company by then Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran.
“At a given point of time, progress in the case was quick, but now it’s getting tardy,” said the bench of Justices GS Singhvi and KS Radhakrishnan, noting its concern that despite the case being monitored for over two and a half years no charge sheet was in sight.
Giving reason for delay, the CBI informed it had shot letters rogatory (LR) to Malaysia and even visited the country but to no avail as the Malaysian Government refused to share details about Maxis owner T Ananda Krishnan, who is a business tycoon based in Kuala Lumpur. With the chargesheet getting delayed on this account, the bench directed the CBI to file the chargesheet based on the evidence already gathered, which in the opinion of the petitioners in the 2G case — Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy and advocate Prashant Bhushan — was sufficient to nail the accused.
Swamy also raised a related issue of FIPB clearance to Maxis. He alleged that Maxis held 99.3 per cent stake in Aircel, as revealed to the Malaysian stock exchange, while RBI Rules do not permit foreign investment beyond 74 per cent. Moreover, neither Maxis nor Aircel informed the Indian authorities that Saudi Telecom Company (STC) owns more than 30 per cent of the shares of Maxis. This would have alerted the Intelligence Bureau and R&AW, Swamy alleged in his petition. According to him, the meeting held on March 7, 2006 granting FIPB approval to Maxis-Aircel deal was not on record.
The Bench directed the CBI to produce the original minutes of the said meeting on Wednesday, the next date of hearing when the court also called the Attorney General to assist them on behalf of the Centre. It was shocking to note that when the bench sought to know the status regarding FIPB clearance and security concerns expressed by Swamy, no counsel representing the Centre was present in court. “Union of India is not serious in the matter. That’s why nobody is appearing. They think it’s a matter between CBI and petitioners.”http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/sc-clears-sanction--hurdle-for-the-cbi.html