The law ministry has instructed attorney general GE Vahanvati to represent prime minister Manmohan Singh who will give an affidavit before the Supreme Court for his alleged inaction in the alleged 2G spectrum allocation scam case. Solicitor general Gopal Subramanium will continue representing the government in the case after having come into the media spotlight after denying reports of his meeting with counsel for former telecoms minister A Raja.
Law minister Veerappa Moily told reporters: "There is no change in government representation...the Solicitor General (Gopal Subramanium) will represent the Department of Telecommunications while (Additional Solicitor General) Haren Raval will represent the CBI as they are separate entities.”
Moily said that since Subramanium was already representing the department of telecommunications, Vahanvati was authorised to represent the Prime Minister.
Subramanium told The Hindu: “It is not a question of replacement but of better coordination. I will continue to represent the central government and the Department of Telecom on the issue while the Attorney General will represent the Prime Minister.”
On Thursday the court had asked prime minister Singh to file an affidavit about why he allegedly did not reply to letters for nearly a year from former law minister and opposition member Subramaniam Swamy, who pinned the irregularities in the 2G spectrum allocation on Raja, who resigned last Sunday.
Solicitor general Subramanium had earlier this week told the Supreme Court that the PM had in fact responded to every one of Swamy’s letters, who claimed he sent five reminders. The Times of India disputed the solicitor general’s version of the story, with the paper reporting that unnamed government officials backed up Swamy’s version that he had not received any reply until 19 March 2010. Swamy’s original petition was sent on 29 November 2008.
Earlier this week Solicitor general Subramanium’s version of events was also at odds with Times of India’s reports. The Supreme Court having sided against the media in the case alleging that they had “misreported” an alleged attempt by the solicitor general to discuss the case with Raja’s lawyer.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
How does one report abuse? There is no link provided.
Thank you for removing #1. Since my comment has been renumbered as #1, let me clarify that I was not advocating removal of my own comment :-).
Apparently the SG was replaced by the AG as the powers that be felt he had not argued the law on private prosecutions correctly and thereby allowed the PM to be dragged into this mess. Many eminent Senior lawyers have been appearing on various news channels and giving their opinions on the subject. Last night Kapil Sibal was giving 'Exclusive' interviews on at least three channels. He stated that a private citizen having a complaint must file the complaint in a court which if it so sees fit order an investigation. Only after the investigation does the question of sanctioning prosecution arise. Therefore, as the CBI is currently seized of the matter the PM is doing the right thing in waiting for the result of this decision before taking a decision. Since the SG didn't argue this line his political bosses were most unhappy.
The previous evening Jayanti Natarajn made essentially the same argument and she was trashed by Swamy and Raju Ramachandran, Former Addl SG. The SC has also stated that when a complaint from a private citizen is received, the sanctioning authority (PM in this case) must make up his mind on the material presented and take a decision within a reasonable time. He is free to reject the application but he has to do SOMETHING within three months.
So now we have two diametrically opposite interpretations of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Who's correct?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first