Charge framed by CBI court in 2G case sensibly drops 'loss to the exchequer'

The special CBI court has finally framed charges in the 2G case and it strikes a significant departure from the tenor of accusations hitherto. The court omits to accuse telecom minister A Raja or others of causing any specified loss to the exchequer. The focus has shifted to manipulation of the queue of applicants for licence to favour Swan Telecom and Unitech Wireless. The decision to drop allegations of causing loss to the exchequer is entirely appropriate and punctures the notion that the policy to not auction spectrum for second-generation mobile telephony (2G) was itself the principal scam.

The implication is that since the policy is no longer in the dock, Cabinet ministers who collectively are responsible for policy can no longer be dragged into the 2G mess. Yet, the court does observe that minister Raja deliberately refrained from either revising the entry fee fixed in 2001 and did not consider auctions. Why the entry fee was not revised defies explanation. But, on the question of why there were no auction of spectrum for allocation to new licensees, the framed charge glosses over one vital fact: telecom regulator Trai did not recommend auctions and the department of telecom required such a recommendation to institute auctions.

Mr Raja wrote back to the Prime Minister, after the latter suggested exploring the use of auctions to allocate spectrum, saying that Trai had opined that auctioning spectrum for new licensees would be anti-competitive and mala fide, when the incumbents had been allocated spectrum as an entitlement of licence without a separate upfront charge. Given Trai's sensible view on 2G spectrum auctions, it is difficult to find fault with Mr Raja's decision as telecom minister to not hold auctions. The framed charge has other weaknesses. While Mr Raja is accused of receiving a bribe of 200 crore, there is no such charge against fellow government functionaries Behura and Chandolia. While the promoters of Swan are accused of giving the bribe, the promoters of Unitech face no such charge.

The framing of charges opens the way for the accused to move court for bail. Since neither flight nor fresh tampering of evidence is a likelihood, bail would be in order.