Government gets till Saturday to file 2G spectrum affidavit (Second Lead)By IANS
Thursday, November 18, 2010
NEW DELHI - The Supreme Court Thursday asked the solicitor general to file an affidavit by Saturday detailing the government’s action in response to the application seeking sanction to prosecute A. Raja, who recently quit as telecom minister.
Adjourning the hearing, the apex court bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly also said it wanted to “carefully” go through the final report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and compare it with the report of the Director General of Audit (Post and Telegraph).
The bench asked Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to file an affidavit giving details of the government’s action in response to Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy’s application seeking sanction to launch criminal prosecution proceedings against Raja.
The court direction came after the solicitor general told the court that the government has responded in action to Swamy’s application. The court was told that Swamy had not attached those documents to his petition.
“Every letter of Swamy has been dealt with,” the solicitor general told the. He added that even he had tendered an opinion in the case wherein he had said the “investigation must proceed appropriately”.
At this, the court said: “If every letter of Swamy has been dealt with, can you file an affidavit giving details.”
The affidavit on behalf of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be filed by an officer.
The court asked Swamy if he had any communication other than one he received from the prime minister in March 2010.
Swamy told the court that he received a letter from the former telecom minister answering the application to the prime minister seeking permission to proceed against him.
The court made it clear that Raja’s letter to Swamy had nothing to do with latter’s application to the prime minister for sanction.
While asking the solicitor general to file an affidavit, the court noted that it would take a serious view if any material in the possession of the petitioner was held back from it.
“If anything is held back from us, we will take a serious view,” the bench said.