2011 (1) SCC 560
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, J.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India and others - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2010
Decided on : December 16, 2010
(1983) 3 SCC 344; (1985) 1 SCC 317; (1994) Supp 1 SCC 143; (1995) 3 SCC 601; (1996) 2 SCC 199; (1996) 6 SCC 354; (1997) 4 SCC 770; (2003) 6 SCC 175; (2007) 1 SCC 110; (2008) 3 SCC 542; (1998) 1 SCC 52; (1992) 4 SCC 305; (2009) 10 SCC 488; (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 – Referred
Facts of the case:
PIL was been filed for a court monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigating Team into what has been termed as `2G Spectrum Scam’ for unearthing the role of respondent No.5-Shri A. Raja, the then Union Minister for the Department of Telecommunications, senior officers of that department, middlemen, businessmen and others.
High Court dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
High Court erred in dismissing the petition raising important issues at the threshold.
Result:
Appeal allowed; directions given.
ORDER
G.S. Singhvi, J.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved by refusal of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petition filed by them for a court monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, `the CBI') or a Special Investigating Team into what has been termed as `2G Spectrum Scam' for unearthing the role of respondent No.5-Shri A. Raja, the then Union Minister for the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), senior officers of that department, middlemen, businessmen and others, the appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. After issue of notice by this Court on 13.9.2010, the parties have filed affidavits and large number of documents including performance audit report (draft and final) prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on the issue of licences and allocation of 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology for the period from 2003-04 to 2009-10, which has been submitted to the President of India as per the requirement of Article 151 of the Constitution, a compact disc allegedly containing conversation of Ms. Niira Radia with some public representatives, businessmen, journalists and alleged middlemen and written submissions.
4. On 29.11.2010, Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI produced two sealed envelopes containing status report prepared in relation to Case No.RCDAI 2009 A0045 (2G Spectrum case). On 8.12.2010, Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement produced before the Court the report prepared by the Enforcement Directorate in a sealed envelope, which was opened in the Court. After going through the report, the report was placed in the sealed cover and returned to Shri Raval.
5. For detailed examination of the issues raised by the appellants, it will be useful to notice the background in which spectrum licences were given to different parties in 2008. These are:
(i) Till 1994, telecommunication services were absolute monopoly of the Government of India. In November, 1994, the Central Government framed National Telecom Policy (NTP) permitting private sector involvement in the telecommunication sector.
(ii) In the first phase, two Cellular Mobile Telephone Services (CMTS) licenses were awarded in each of the four metro cities i.e. Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai to the private entrepreneurs, who satisfied a predetermined set of criteria. The license fee payable by the operators was also predetermined and there was no bidding.
(iii) In the second phase, two CMTS licenses were awarded in 18 telecom circles sometime in December, 1995 through bidding process.
(iv) In January, 1995, tenders were invited for award of Basic Service Operator (BSO) licenses for license fee payable over a period of 15 years.
(v) In 1997, Parliament enacted the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act (for short, `the Act') for facilitating establishment and incorporation of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Section 11 of the TRAI Act, which enumerates the functions of Authority, reads as under: -
"11. Functions of Authority. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), the functions of the Authority shall be to-
(a) make recommendations, either suo motu or on a request from the licensor, on the following matters, namely:-
(i) need and timing for introduction of new service provider;
(ii) terms and conditions of license to a service provider;
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) measures to facilitate competition and promote efficiency in the operation of telecommunication services so as to facilitate growth in such services;
(v) xxx xxx xxx
(vi) xxx xxx xxx
(vii) measures for the development of telecommunication technology and any other matter relatable to telecommunication industry in general;
(viii) efficie
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police
State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Niyamavedi
Vineet Narain v. Union of India
Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India
Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi
Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala
Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.