2G scam: NGO for monitoring of probe by experts

New Delhi, Sep 28 (PTI) An NGO, which alleged that the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation in the 2G
spectrum scam was "less than honest" as it was not probing
many high-profile persons including Indian Home Minister P
Chidambaram, Wednesday stressed in the Supreme Court the need
for setting up of a committee of experts for effective
monitoring of the probe in the case.
"In order to assist the court it is imperative and
essential to entrust the matter to at least two persons of
eminence for monitoring the probe," advocate Prashant Bhushan,
appearing for the NGO, Cemtre for Public Interest Litigation
(CPIL), submitted before a bench of justice G S Singhvi and A
K Ganguly.
The NGO expressed apprehension of the case collapsing in
the trial court on the ground that CBI investigation was "less
than honest" like the Hawala case of 1996 involving high
profile persons.
Bhushan said several aspects of the 2G scam have not been
touched by the CBI including the assets of persons mentioned
in the diary recovered from former telecom minister A Raja.
He also contested the submission of the CBI and the
Centre that monitoring comes to an end with the completion of
the probe and filing of the charge sheet by giving example of
various cases including the Gujarat riot cases, saying the
apex court appointed the Special Investigating Team (SIT)
after the charge sheets were filed in most of the cases.
Bhushan said the CBI probe has to be more independent and
should be monitored by a committee like SIT because most of
the top officers in the agency are IPS and the Home Ministry
is their cadre-controlling authority.
Bhushan said, "The person(Chidambaram) who gave
permission has not been quizzed so far because the
cadre-controlling authority of the top CBI officers who are
IPS officers is the Home Ministry. Reluctance to probe Home
Minister is not surprising."
The CPIL alleged CBI has also not chargesheeted Attorney
General G E Vahanvati, who as the then Solicitor General, gave
opinion to Raja on the issue of licences for the 2G spectrum.
However, the bench shot back saying "if any opinion is
given by a lawyer, can he be held liable. Nobody will give
opinion in such case".
Vahanvati, who has been made a witness in the case, has
denied all allegations against him.
CBI during the early hearings had opposed the plea for
constituting the committee or setting up of SIT with its
counsel and senior advocate K K Venugopal saying "it is not
possible".
Venugopal had said a strange procedure was being sought
to be followed after charge sheets have already been filed in
the case.
The NGO alleged CBI was not doing a fair and impartial
investigation irrespective of the status of the person sought
to be investigated, as was directed by apex court by its
December 16, 2010 order.
The NGO in its application said, "Thus, it is essential
that either two or three persons with good reputation and
experience be appointed to oversee and monitor the CBI probe
on a day-to-day basis (as has been done in black money case)
or the entire investigation be handed over to an SIT.
"If this is not done, then the petitioners fear that this
case might suffer the same fate as that of other court-
monitored investigations like the hawala case where all
the accused were acquitted due to slipshod investigations and
weak charge sheets by CBI or the recent cash-for-votes
scandal where the real beneficiaries so far appear to have got
away," the NGO said.
Bhushan said there was apprehension that the case would
collapse in the trial court as the probe by CBI has not been
honest and big and influential people like ADAG Chairman Anil
Ambani and others have not been chargesheeted.
ADAG group has denied the allegation of its involvement
in the 2G scam.
CBI was also not chargesheeting Datacom and Videocon
for their alleged wrongdoings in the case, he said.
On July 11, the apex court had disfavoured the idea of
setting up a SIT for effective monitoring of the probe into 2G
spectrum scam saying "CBI and ED were on the right course" and
"any inteference at this stage may jeopardize" the probe.
Bhushan questioned CBI for not charge-sheeting the Tatas
who he claimed were one of the biggest beneficiaries of
out-of-turn allotment of the spectrum and potrayed them as
a victim just because they didn't get spectrum in Delhi
circle.
Bhushan also said there have been several shortcomings in
the CBI probe in the case as the agency has not mentioned
at all in its charge sheets about Telecom Regulatory Authority
of India (TRAI) Act violations as DoT, without following
mandatory Section 11 procedure, unilaterally deviated from
TRAI recommendations on issue of new licenses.