New Delhi, Feb. 4: A special court today not only dismissed a plea to make Union minister P. Chidambaram an accused in the 2G case but also set the record straight on decision-making that has become a collateral casualty of the lynch-mob syndrome in the country. "Anybody and everybody associated with a decision in any degree cannot be roped (in) as an accused," 2G special court judge .P. Saini said while dismissing the petition by Subramanian Swamy. Had the court admitted the petition to order a probe to establish if Chidambaram, now home minister and then finance minister, had played a role in the telecom scandal, it would have cast a big question mark on the survival of the UPA government. However, the sighs of relief in the government in the immediate aftermath of the ruling appear to have overshadowed a forceful statement by the court on decision-making. The clarification assumes significance against the backdrop of extreme reluctance by ministers and officials to take quick decisions for fear of being branded corrupt. The judge said a decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal just because it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others. However, the court drew a distinction between Chidambaram and those charged in the case. "I may add that there is such incriminating material against other accused persons, who stand charged and are facing trial," the judge said. The court said there was no evidence on record to suggest that there was an agreement between Chidambaram and Raja to subvert telecom policy and obtain pecuniary advantage for himself (Chidambaram). "A bit of evidence here and a bit there does not constitute prima facie evidence for showing prima facie existence of a criminal conspiracy," the order said. The court then held that a decision-maker could not be held guilty merely by association — a well-known principle that appears to have been drowned out in the prevailing atmosphere of charges and counter-charges. "The role played by the decision-maker, circumstances in which the decision was taken and the intention of the decision-maker are the relevant facts. Intention is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. One cannot be held guilty merely by association with a decision and a decision by itself does not indicate criminality. There must be something more than mere association. 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," the order said. Judge Saini said Chidambaram did not act in pursuit to the criminal conspiracy hatched by Raja, the former telecom minister, who awarded 122 licences in 2008 by acting in an arbitrary way. "There is no evidence on record that he (Chidambaram) was acting in pursuit of the criminal conspiracy, while being party to the two decisions regarding non-revision of the spectrum pricing and dilution of equity by the two companies. Accordingly, I do not find any sufficient ground for proceeding against P. Chidambaram. The plea is without any merit and the same is dismissed," Saini said in his 65-page order. Swamy had filed a private complaint seeking to implead Chidambaram as a co-accused in the case, alleging he had taken a joint decision with the former telecom minister on fixing the 2G spectrum price. The order said Chidambaram was party to only two decisions — keeping the spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by the two companies. "These two acts are not per se criminal. In the absence of any other incriminating act on his part, it cannot be said that he was prima facie party to the criminal conspiracy," the court said. Swamy's allegation was that Chidambaram was privy to the decisions that Raja took on pricing and that the then finance minister wrongly allowed two companies, Swan Telecom and Unitech Wireless, to dilute their equity for foreign investors. Merely attending meetings and taking decisions therein is not a criminal act. It must have the taint of use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of his official position by a public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage by him for himself or for any other person. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment