CBI failed to challenge 2015 excess spectrum order: Public prosecutor

NEW DELHI: The public prosecutor in the 2G spectrum case, Anand Grover, told the Supreme Court that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had not followed his recommendation to challenge a 2015 special court order acquitting all the accused in the excess spectrum case.
Grover made the complaint even as the top court bench monitoring telecom cases demanded a status report from the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate on their investigations into alleged irregularities related to the Aircel-Maxis deal.

The public prosecutor had faced the special court’s flak last month when it acquitted all the accused, including former telecom minister and DMK leader A Raja and his party colleague and MP Kanimozhi, in the 2G case.


An appeal against the December 22, 2017, judgement is expected to be filed in the Delhi High Court, challenging the acquittal and also seeking expunging of the adverse remarks the special court made against the public prosecutor.

But in the excess spectrum case dating back to 2002, where the same court acquitted former telecom secretary Shyamal Ghosh and telecom firms Bharti Airtel and Vodafone India, the CBI has done nothing despite its officials agreeing with his opinion to challenge it, Grover said.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that a revision had not been filed in that case because the attorney general had given an opinion against it. He, however, sought more time to take a call on the issue. “Please grant us 10 days or two weeks to deal with it,” he said.

Grover asked how the government could interfere on the basis of AG’s opinion when the top court was monitoring a case.

In that case, the CBI had argued that the exchequer had suffered a loss of more than ₹800 crore after excess spectrum was allotted to these companies at a lower price. But the special judge discharged all without framing charges citing lack of evidence.

In the Aircel-Maxis case, the Maran brothers — Dayanidhi and Kalanithi — were discharged early last year by the same court, saying that they had been charged on a misreading of official documents.