Monday, November 22, 2010

PM Accuses The Law Ministry For 2G Omission in a Statement of SC

A beleaguered prime minister on Saturday, the legal advisers of the blame for not making provision for the prosecution of the then communications minister A. Raja for his supposed role in 2G fraud.

Manmohan Singh rejected the opposition replied that he was silent observer of the process 2G spectrum allocation, and his team pointed a finger at the inaction of the law ministry on the request for authorization to prosecute a minister.

In a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister, C. Vidyavati, director of the PMO, said routine movement of files directly from the letter of the day Janata Party Subramanian Swamy, dated November 29, 2008 was read by Dr. Singh on December 1, 2008. Although this statement almost skirts the issue of inactivity.

The only excuse for making a decision on the plea Swamy apparently delayed legal advice from the Legal Department shows that the decision to sanction an agreement can be made after verification of the evidence gathered by the CBI - which is registered in the FIR case 11 months after Swamy wants penalty case against Raja.

Said in the statement of Prime Minister said earlier: "I make this statement just to show how different letters of the author (Swamy) duly taken into account." While Swamy has alleged that the Prime Minister is bound by the request for penalties to decide within three months according to a ruling by the Supreme Court, the affidavit indicates that the file kept moving back and forth for six months , Prime Minister Office (PMO) on the issue of the Law Department on May 29, 2009 to provide legal assistance.

The legal advice was sought before the CBI registered a case of fraud on October 21, 2009, against unknown persons, but the PMO official response from the Law Department after more than eight months of February 8, 2010.

Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily adopted an opinion on January 26, 2010. The only excuse for delay in providing legal advice proves the fact that on June 8, 2009, the Law Ministry said it had called for the views of the Department of Telecommunications (dot) to investigate the matter in proper perspective. Interestingly, the PMO has already referred the matter to a point at 24 March 2009 more than two months before it was referred to the Law Ministry.

On March 25, PMO Manager dealing with telecommunications, Amit Agarwal, wrote to Dot with a request to send the appropriate response to Swamy. Raja, then Swamy wrote on June 18, 2009, stating that his request was not justified.

With Prime Minister not to answer Swamy send reminders to Singh after CBI registers FIR in this matter. With the PMO having received legal advice five months before registration of FIR, were subsequent letters sent by Swamy and the Ministry of Law. While Swamy stated for now CBI case, the punishment is only a formality, since the Law Ministry said that Swamy was referred to the probe CBI, the prime minister to wait until the evidence collected by the agency.

The reply was then sent Swamy on March 19, 2010, stating the reason for which was kept to a decision on his case.

Bank is composed of judges AK Ganguly and GS Singhvi was informed during the hearing on 16 November that the decision of punishment was not taken as CBI is probing. The Court notes, however, that CBI FIR is approximately 11 months after Swamy seeks sanction registered.

"Swamy seeks penalty for filing a case on November 29, 2008, and CBI registers FIR against unknown persons only in October 2009a € |. What happened (in the PMO) during the 11 months between the Justice Ganguly was asked.

Following Swamy said that the Supreme Court had a period of three months to decide on sanctions in general hard passivity and silence is worrying. "The Bank requires the silence of the Prime Minister, Attorney General Gopal Subramanium said that he will be able to explain the reason for the delay only after reviewing the files.

The court then adjourned the case until November 1918 when Subramanium Swamy said that all letters relating to 2G fraud are adequately treated with the Prime Minister. He said it is clear that all documents have been treated with responsible and Swamy received a reply. Swamy, however, objected saying he had just received a letter from the Prime Minister.

In a further embarrassment to the Prime Minister, the court demanded an explanation on his behalf if the records can not be made Swamy for his response. One day after the hearing, the government asked the Attorney General GE Vahanvati Prime Minister on 23 November.

In order to further strengthen the legal team, the Government has learned to have asked senior counsel KK Venugopal of the CBI, presented at the hearing of the case. Subramanium, points represent.


Post a Comment