Reiterating that the Home Minister needed to be questioned over the issue, Swamy said, “If inquiry takes place against Chidambaram, he must not be in his post, he must quit.”
The Janata Party chief called Chidambaram an “active participant in deciding the issue”.
“Raja was a decision maker. Kanimozhi and then Maran were beneficiaries. Chidambaram was also a decision maker,” said Swamy.
Meanhwile, defending the Home Minister, Congress leader Sanjay Nirupam said that the Finance Ministry note was just a sequence of events of meeting that took place and Chidambaram went with the recommendations.
“Question is whether a policy decision was wrong, and that is the question we need to know,” said Nirupam.
Court asks CBI to produce 500-page FinMin document
Why were many high-profile persons not probed, asks Prashant Bhushan
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the CBI to produce by Thursday the 500-page document prepared by the then Finance Secretary, D. Subbarao (present RBI Governor), on the 2G spectrum allocation.
On Tuesday, senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, told a Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly that the controversial March 25, 2011 note sent by the Finance Ministry to the Prime Minister’s Office was nothing but “conclusions drawn from the 500-page file prepared by Mr. Subbarao.” He said the 15 documents filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy formed part of the 500-page file, which the CBI had examined and the final report was filed in the trial court. He made it clear that there was no question of the CBI examining the 15 documents, as such examination “does not arise.”
During the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Justice Singhvi asked Mr. Venugopal whether the 500-page file was available with the CBI. Counsel said the CBI would produce it in the court.
Counsel Prashant Bhushan for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation alleged that the CBI was not doing a fair and impartial investigation irrespective of the status of the person sought to be investigated, as was directed by the Supreme Court in its December 16, 2010 order. He alleged that the investigation was “less than honest” as the CBI was not probing many high-profile persons, including Home Minister P. Chidambaram.
Mr. Bhushan said several aspects of the 2G scam were not touched by the CBI, including the assets of persons mentioned in a diary recovered from the former Telecom Minister, A Raja. Disputing the contentions of the Union government that monitoring should come to an end once the charge sheet was filed, Mr. Bhushan pointed out that in the Gujarat riot cases, the Supreme Court appointed the Special Investigating Team (SIT) after the charge sheets were filed in most of the cases.
He said most of the top officers in the CBI were IPS officers for whom the Home Ministry was the cadre-controlling authority. “That is why Mr. Chidambaram has not even been questioned so far as once these IPS officers move out of the CBI their confidential reports will be under the Home Ministry’s control.”
When Mr. Bhushan alleged that Attorney-General G. E. Vahanvati, who as the then Solicitor-General, gave opinion to Mr. Raja, had not been chargesheeted for conspiracy, Justice Singhvi told counsel “law officer’s opinion may be wrong. But for that you cannot allege conspiracy. If you start alleging conspiracy for every opinion then no law officer will give any opinion.”
Mr. Bhushan said the CBI had failed to question industrialists Anil Ambani, the Tatas, Datacom/Videocon. “Thus it is essential that either two or three persons with good reputation and experience be appointed to oversee and monitor the CBI investigation on a day-to-day basis (as has been done in the 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 the CBI, or the recent cash-for-votes scandal, where the real beneficiaries so far appear to have got away.”
Arguments will continue on Thursday.
2G scam: Subramanian Swamy drags in Karunanidhi, Robert Vadra
Subramanian Swamy claims he has evidence against Robert Vadra and Karunanidhi.
Janata Party president Subramanian Swamyhas said Congress chief Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra and DMK chief M. Karunanidhi could be his next targets in the 2G spectrum allocation scam.
Speaking to Headlines Today, Swamy claimed he had enough proof against the two in the case as he continued to attack Home Minister P. Chidambaram over the issue.
Asked about his oft repeated allegation of “many big fishes being involved in the 2G mess”, Swamy said he was to make a choice between Karunanidhi and Vadra.
“I have to make a choice between Karunanidhi and Vadra and I will make that choice by tomorrow,” Swamy said.
Pulling up the CBI for its investigation in the case, Swamy said, “In the Supreme Court, I say that since I am a private individual, I want the CBI to enquire and the CBI has been enquiring in this matter while they have been avoiding making any enquiry in case of Chidambaram, even though under Section 161 of the CrPC anyone who has knowledge (regarding a case) has to be interrogated.”
“So, I will say that the CBI needs to interrogate Chidambaram and I have brought many documents on board which the CBI does not seem to have seen. So I have asked the court to direct the CBI to investigate,” he added.
Asked about Law Minister Salman Khurshid’s statement that the 2G note, sent by finance ministry to the prime minister’s office (PMO) pointing out then finance minister Chidambaram’s role in the scam, was misinterpreted by the media, Swamy said, “It was serious document and a senior official wrote it. It says finance ministry officials always pleaded with Chidambaram that do the auction, don’t allow this first come, first served basis. But he rejected them all. He sided with Raja and to the extent that he emerged as the senior partner.”