An order of Delhi High court has been reserved for January on a complaint seeking registration of an FIR against Prime MinisterManmohan Singh and former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran for their alleged role in the 2G scam.
According to the Special Judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal after hearing the arguments from the CBI as well as the complainant Vivek Garg, “Arguments have been heard. Put up for order on January 30.”
During the arguments, Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran told the court that the complaint should have been filed before the Special Court constituted exclusively to deal with all the cases and matters pertaining to 2G spectrum scam.
He said, “The complainant (Garg) should move the special court. The present complaint, filed before any other court except the special court is not maintainable. This court may direct this matter to be placed before the special court.”
Garg, who in his complaint has accused the Prime Minister and Maran of “unlawfully changing and diluting” the original Terms of References (ToRs) for vacation and reallocation of spectrum leading to the 2G scam, told the court that first the CBI should lodge an FIR and then further proceedings can be done in the special court.
Garg also filed his reply in response to the CBI’s status report submitted in the court earlier and sought initiation of action against the agency for filing a “misleading” report.
The CBI had earlier told the court that Garg’s complaint has been merged with the FIR already registered by it against Maran and others in October 2011.
Garg had earlier sent a complaint to the CBI and also to the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi government, before moving the court.
The government law officers are “not appointed on the basis of their merit. They are appointed on some other consideration. There is also coalition politics in their appointment”, the Supreme Court said Monday.
The court’s oral observation came while it expressed anguish over mistakes in drafting of petitions and poor knowledge of some government advocates.
“You appoint people who can’t draft (petitions). There are so many mistakes,” said Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Chief Justice Kapadia told Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran: “Please see you appoint advocates who can draft (petitions) properly and have some knowledge of income tax laws.”
He observed that government law officers “are not appointed on the basis of their merit. They are appointed on some other consideration. There is also coalition politics in their appointment”.
The bench of Chief Justice Kapadia and Justice A.K. Patnaik was hearing a petition by the Income Tax department challenging an adverse high court order on tax demand against Citi Bank.
The court took exception to the inordinate delay in the filing of the government’s appeal challenging adverse verdicts in cases involving high tax demands.
The court made its observations while perusing the affidavit by Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, L.N. Pant who gave reasons for an inordinate delay in challenging adverse court orders involving the huge amount of tax demands.
The Supreme Court on Thursday wanted to know from the Centre as to what would be the guarantee that there would be no radio active substance in the spent fuel to be stored at the controversial Kudankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu to prevent any accident.
Posing a host of searching queries to the Centre on the functional safety of the power plant, a bench of justices K S Radhakrishanan and Deepak Misra also asked if any environmental impact assessment was done on the project.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on next Thursday, saying that it would pass appropriate orders after examining the issue at length.
“It is not adversarial. We are concerned with the people’s rights and interests. It is in public interest. What will be the guarantee that there will be no radio active material in it?
“In 1984 there was the Bhopal gas tragedy. But the problem of waste is still there. If there is a problem, how to meet it?” the bench asked Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman and Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, who appeared for the Centre.
The bench was dealing with the petition filed by social activist G Sundarrajan challenging the Madras high court’s decision not to impose any restraint against the plant, despite the alleged non-compliance of several safety measures recommended by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel Prashant Bhushan told the bench that not only 11 out of the 17 recommendations made by the AERB were violated by the government but even minimum statutory norms like environmental assessment impact and disaster management study and measures have been overlooked for loading the fuel in the plant.
“Was any environmental impact assessment done?” the bench asked the Centre to which Parasarn nodded in the affirmative.
(Source : PTI)