SC to PM: Explain silence on Raja

Unprecedented Move: Wants Affidavit By Sat, Says Matter 'Extremely Serious'

New Delhi: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh remained in the Supreme Court's line of fire over the 2G spectrum scam with the apex court on Thursday asking the government to state on oath the reasons for his failure to respond for 11 months to a petition seeking sanction for prosecution of ex-telecom minister A Raja.
    A bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly gave the government two days—that is, till Saturday—to file an affidavit listing the reasons for the delay by the Prime Minister.
    The SC's directive is unprecedented. This is the first time that the court has insisted on an explanation from a PM through an affidavit. Usually, it would settle for a perusal of files. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Tuesday.
    The court's directive in what the bench has termed a "very, very sensitive matter'' will ensure that the PM remains under the public glare over the spectrum scam and that the logjam in Parliament will not abate any time soon. Apex court cites 'bitter experience' in the past T he intent of the bench came through very clearly in the hearing on Thursday as the two judges brushed aside solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam's praise for the PM and insisted on an affidavit on Singh's behalf.
    Indeed, at another point in the hearing, the court agreed with the petitioner that a response from Raja could not be seen as a rebuttal of Swamy's argument on the PM's failure to respond to his petition. "Raja is not the sanctioning authority. We wanted the reply from the sanctioning authority,'' the bench said as it explained why it was insisting on an affidavit instead of going ahead with the hearing on the basis of oral arguments of the SG.
    The bench cited its "bitter experience'' in the past when the government held back facts from the court after it had allowed oral submissions. It further said that the petitioner was unable to verify facts when the court allows oral submissions. The petition in question was filed by Subramaniam Swamy who on November 21, 2008, sought the PM's sanction for Raja's prosecution. Swamy, who listed "evidence'' of Raja's involvement in the 2G spectrum scam, has claimed that he got no response for 16 months. Stressing that the case was "very, very sensitive'', the court said oral arguments should not be the basis of adjudication. It reminded the SG that this was why on November 15 it had repeatedly asked him whether he needed time to seek instructions from the sanctioning authority (the PM). The SG sought to paint an "everything is clean and shorn of irregularity'' picture, while assuring the SC that all letters from Swamy had been dealt with more than adequately and responded to.
    Swamy contradicted the SG, pointing out he had written five times to the PM and had received only one communication, that too from the Department of Personnel and Training, on March 19, 2010. "Yes, I have received another communication but that was from then telecom minister A Raja,'' he added.
    The bench shot back, "This is a very, very sensitive matter. We think it will be appropriate that you put in an affidavit. If it is oral arguments and something is kept back from the court, nothing can be done later. Speaking from the bitter experiences of the past when things have been kept back from the court, it will be better if an affidavit is put on record.''
    It further explained that simply showing the files to the bench would not suffice in an extremely serious matter as the petitioner would not have the advantage of seeing the files.

STRAIGHT TALK

Is Raja the sanctioning authority? We wanted the reply from the sanctioning authority (the PM) on the delay. We think it will be appropriate that an affidavit is filed on behalf of PM as the matter is very, very serious in nature
    SUPREME COURT

It must be clear things have been dealt with transparently. Every letter of Swamy has been dealt with and he has got the replies. He has been answered more than adequately
    GOPAL SUBRAMANIAM
    SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I have received only a single communication from the DoPT on behalf of PM to my petition seeking sanction to prosecute A Raja. And yes, another letter from Raja himself
SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY

LEGAL VIEW

PM has to explain? Unusual, very unusual? I don't recollect anything of this sort
    SOLI SORABJEE

There's been a cover-up. The highest court of the land is entitled to find the truth
RAM JETHMALANI