Home India Politics 2G case: Court reserves order on Swamy’s plea

2G case: Court reserves order on Swamy’s plea

By IANS,

New Delhi: A special CBI court here Saturday reserved its order on Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy’s plea to examine witnesses to establish Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s alleged complicity in the second generation (2G) spectrum allocation case.

Taking note of Swamy’s plea to examine witnesses, including Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials, to establish the alleged role of the then finance minister in the case, Special CBI Judge O.P. Saini said: “The court will pronounce its verdict on complainant’s plea Dec 8.”

Swamy has sought to make Chidambaram a party in the case, saying the decision on spectrum pricing was taken jointly by him and former telecom minister A. Raja, who is presently lodged in Tihar Jail.

“Charges should also be framed against P. Chidambaram. Accordingly, the process for it should be initiated,” Swamy told the court.

He added that the official documents given to him by the CBI following the court’s order establish that four meetings took place between Chidambaram and Raja, in which a decision was taken to keep spectrum prices at 2001 level.

He also referred to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement that the then finance minister had consulted with Raja and the two worked out on an agreed formula on pricing of spectrum.

“Raja had recorded on a file and a press note that the then finance minister had permitted the sale of licences to foreign companies – Etisalat of Dubai and Norway’s Telenor – despite both the firms being under the home ministry’s scanner,” Swamy said.

“Swan Telecom and Unitech sold their shares to Etisalat and Telenor respectively. They were under the scanner of the home ministry and the ministry had recommended that these two companies should not be allowed to do business in India,” Swamy added.

Swamy, who is pursuing a private complaint in the 2G scam, had also sought to examine CBI officials concerned “to establish the nexus of accused persons with others, who have intentionally not been made accused by the prosecuting agency”.