2G case: 10 big facts about today's verdict on Chidambaram, telecom scam

1. In a one-line judgement, Judge OP Saini, who is handling the trial of Mr Raja and others in the telecom scam, rejected the petition filed by Subramanian Swamy, who is the Janata Party President. "Disappointed with the judgement. Will appeal in High Court," Mr Swamy told NDTV.
   
   
2. With today's judgement, Mr Swamy's petition on a CBI inquiry against Mr Chidambaram automatically becomes redundant. The Supreme Court, in a verdict on Thursday, had asked Judge Saini to decide on that request within two weeks.
   
   
3. Fathered allegedly by A Raja in 2008, the swindle saw the former telecom minister assigning cellphone network licences at clearance-sale prices, with free spectrum thrown in, to companies with whom he conspired. Mr Raja on paper followed a first-come-first-serve policy, which was the accepted norm at the time. But he allegedly twisted the rules to push the companies he favoured to the head of the line. It was Mr Raja's alleged manipulation of the rules that allowed ineligible companies to get out-of-turn licenses.
   
   
4. Mr Swamy, who has been praised this week by the Supreme Court for pushing the telecom scam to the forefront of the country's agenda, said  that it was Mr Chidambaram's job as Finance Minister to prevent Mr Raja from his spree of nefarious licencing. Like the opposition, Mr Swamy says that Mr Chidambaram was privy to the decisions that Mr Raja took. On matters like the pricing of spectrum, he should have intervened to protect the country's interests, they argued.
   
   
5. Correct, says Mr Raja, who completed a year in jail this week. He says that he briefed not just the Finance Minister but the Prime Minister on every development as it emerged. He has also said that he would like to summon Mr Chidambaram as a witness in court.
   
   
6. But the Supreme Court has placed the blame firmly on Mr Raja. In a judgement delivered on Thursday, the court said Mr Raja knew that Finance Ministry officials did not approve of his pricing of licences and spectrum, and he deliberately chose not to consult with either Mr Chidambaram or his department.
    
   
7. Critics of Mr Chidambaram found their case vastly strengthened late last year when a note sent by the Finance Ministry to the Prime Minister's Office was exhumed by a Right to Information application. Written in March last year, the note post-mortemed the events of 2008, and was meant to serve as an inter-department backgrounder. But it made the point that the Finance Ministry should have done more to enforce an auction upon Mr Raja. The Prime Minister was forced to respond that Mr Chidambaram enjoyed his confidence as Finance Minister in 2008, and continues to do so now. But the damage was done.
   
   
8. Mr Chidambaram in his defence said that he tried at various points to insist that Mr Raja hold an auction to ensure that this scarce resource was sold at market prices.
   
   
9. Mr Chidambaram's decision to allow Unitech and Swan - who purchased their licenses for 1650 crores each - had been under the scanner since both cpmpanies benefitted within months from huge Foreign Direct Investment. Norway-based Telenor picked up 67 per cent stake in Unitech for 6200 crore. Etisalat DB, a company from Dubai, bought 45 per cent of Swan for 4200 crore.
   
   
10. Both deals were struck within months of Unitech and Swan being allotted their licences by Mr Raja. Media reports at the time alleged that the two telecoms had sold stake for huge profits, undermining the government's guidelines. Mr Chidambaram and the government insist that the transactions were legal.  
    

Tags: 2G, Chidambaram, Etisalat DB, Subramanian Swamy, Swan, Unitech