Vasan hails special court judgement

Case against Home Minister P Chidambaram dismissed

Swamy’s plea alleging Raja-Chidambaram conspiracy “without any merit”, says Special Court. Court cautions against using all evidence against every accused, says Chidambaram’s decisions were not illegal

Arpit Parashar
New Delhi

The special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Court handling the 2G Spectrum scam on Saturday dismissed the plea by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy for making Home Minister P Chidambaram a co-accused in the case terming it “without any merit”. Special Judge OP Saini said in his judgment that he “did not find any sufficient ground for proceeding against” Chidambaram. 

“…neither are there any allegations nor is evidence against Mr P Chidambaram to the effect that he played any role in the subversion of the process of issuance of letters of intent (LOI), UAS Licences and allocation of spectrum in the years 2007-08,” judge Saini said in the order.

On Swamy’s allegations that Chidambaram was as culpable in the case as ex-Telecom Minister A Raja due to his complicity in fixing the price of the spectrum at 2001 level and permitting the companies Swan and Unitech to get licences, Saini said both the acts were not “illegal or violative of any law”. “…there is no material on record to show that Mr P Chidambaram was acting malafide in fixing the price of spectrum at the 2001 level or in permitting dilution of equity by the two companies. These two acts are not per se illegal and there is no further material on record to show any other incriminating act on the part of Mr P Chidambaram,” judge Saini said.

“There is no material record to suggest that Mr Chidambaram was acting with such corrupt or illegal motives (as alleged by Swamy) or was in abuse of his official position, while consenting to the two decisions. There is no evidence that he obtained any pecuniary advantage without any public interest,” the Court added.

The Court sought to draw a distinction between the charges against Raja and against Chidambaram of “conniving” with him. “A decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal for simple reason that it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others,” it said. “In case of a criminal conspiracy, the Court has to see whether (the) two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they are acting together in pursuit of an unlawful act. One may be acting innocently and other may be actuated by criminal intention,” judge Saini commented in the order.

In a significant observation that could be used by other accused in the case in the future during their arguments, Judge Saini cautioned against considering the entire mass of evidence against every accused in the case and commented that “there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy” to trace the precise contribution of each member.

The Court pointed out that while there is enough evidence for criminal cases against the other accused persons who are facing trial in the case there is no evidence to suggest that there was an agreement between Chidambaram and Raja to subvert the telecom policy before the 2G licences were allotted on 10 January, 2008. Rejecting the nearly 2000 pages of evidence presented by Swamy in the Court, judge Saini said, “A bit of evidence here and a bit there does not constitute prima facie evidence for showing prima facie existence of a criminal conspiracy (between Raja and Chidambaram). Anybody and everybody associated with a decision in any degree cannot be roped as an accused.”

“Innocent and innocuous acts done in association with others do not make one a partner in crime unless there is material to indicate otherwise, which is lacking in this case,” he added.

Swamy and advocate Tarun Gombhar, who was assisting Swamy, were the only people allowed into the court room before the judgment was delivered. Journalists who waited outside the court room were allowed only when the verdict was delivered.

Commenting on the order, Swamy said outside the Court that he was ‘disappointed’ with the order and would approach the higher courts to push his case. Tarun Gombhar said that the evidence Swamy had produced before the Court “was sufficient to make a prima facie case against Chidambaram” and that he will “approach the (Delhi) High Court”.

“Well we need to get up and fight again as before,” Swamy posted on social networking site Twitter after the Court order.

The trial court will commence the hearing on the other complaint filed by Swamy in which he has made more allegations against A Raja from 17 March.