Is culpability attach to every decision made in good faith?

The significance of Shri O P Saini's judgement on 2 G Case

Supreme Court prounced the judgement in the 2 G Case holding the 122 licences awarded were infrctious due to blatantly legal illgeality. It point out that CBI was doing a fine job, hence a Special Investigation Team need not be set up by the Supreme Court to monitor the case, and left it to the trial Court, CBI Special case of Shri O P Saini, to prounce whether the then Finance Minister and the current Home Minister Shri P Chidambaram be made an accused. In a sensational judgement delivered on 4-1-2012, the Special CBI Judge prounced a land mark judgement, giving detailed descriptions why he felt that it was unnecessary to drag Shri P Chidambaram into the accused list.

The judge after carefully vetting the documents produced by Subramanya Swami, categorically stated that it is not a dispute that the Finance Minister had permitted DoT to fixing the price of 2G at 2001 level prices. This was in adherence of the Cabinet note dated 31-10-2003 that the decision regarding Spectrum pricing be taken by the Finance Minister in tandem with Minister of Communication & IT. This was communicated by the then Finance Minister to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had accordingly informed the Lok Sabha.

If the Finance Minister takes a well intentioned decision facts on the basis of the note put up to him by another Ministry, and if he is bona fide convinced that the contention of the Minsitry is good for the Country, and having arrived at the conclusion without bias, mala fide intention, agrees with the implementing Ministry, does it amount to collusion, conclusion malafide and vitiated and actuated by criminal intention. Every decision, a public servant takes may not end in accumulation of wealth to the exchequer. The interest rate increase by RBI 13 times in 18 months caused distortion in the economy at the same time, could not tame inflation. Borrowing cost rose as a result, fiscal deficit also grew. For want of liquidity Industrial production slumped. Would you call it a criminal negligence?

Second dilution of equity in Swam Telcom (P) Ltd and Unitech Wireless(TN) Ltd. Firstly, the Spectrum licences are not transferable. Secondly, the Companies that acquired it, did not surrender their controlling stake. If they were to co-opt a new company without changing the basic structure of the Company that got allotted spectrum what is the criminality there. FDI is permitted. Bringing in more liquidity is permitted. Bringing a technical partner is permitted. If the Partner is not from a hostile country, the legal transaction is permissable. What Finance Minister gave was approval as per consitent policy decision of the Government of India. How can such an act be viwed culpable?

What ever was done byChidambaram in his official capacity did not attract any provision of the penal Code. However Raja, did not place TRAI recommendation dtd Aug28,07 before full Telcom Comm. Finance Ministry had written a letter asking Raja to auction, hence he did not refer any consultaions. Law Ministry's suggestio to refer the matter to Empowered Group of Ministers was rejected by Raja. Cut off date was arbitarily fixed. First-cum-First Serviced format was changed and put on public domain only on Jan 10,2008. A chosen few who applied in August,September 2007 were awarded Spectrum but those who applied in 2004,06 were not considered. The loss was pegged by CAG at Rs 1.76 lakh Cr, while CBI said it was Rs 30,984.55 while TRAI noted that there was a gain of Rs 3,000 Cr.

To prove criminality, mens rea, or guilty intent needs to be proved.