The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre to submit an affidavit on Prime Minister's silence on Janata Party president Subramaniam Swamy's petition seeking sanction to prosecute former telecom minister A Raja from the 2G spectrum scam case.
The Supreme Court asked the Centre to submit the affidavit by Saturday and fixed the hearing on Tuesday.
The apex court also stated that showing the files cant be found enough. It has to say owe exactly why with the delay making sure that any concealment of fact, legal court can fix the accountability. The SC wants the affidavit for being filed for the number one Minister by way of responsible officer explaining the 11 long months inaction and silence.
Legal court had on Tuesday asked the costa rica government to spellout within two days why the "sanctioning authority" - however, the number one Minister - remained silent for 11 months spanning a request seeking sanction with the prosecution of any Raja from the 2G case.
Within a mention of the PM Manmohan Singh's oversight role, the SC called a petition submitted by Subramaniam Swamy towards PM, to talk about: "We are stored on the alleged inaction and silence on the sanctioning authority for 11 months on Swamy's petition seeking sanction to prosecute....This precisely what is worrying us."
An SC bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi as well as a K Ganguly hearing the 2G spectrum case asked solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam to examine relevant files before giving his response on Thursday on why it took the costa rica government every thirty days next to 1 year to express to Swamy that prosecution could well be "premature" during this period.
The SC's remarks came for a passing fancy day for the reason that Comptroller and Auditor General's scathing report within the allocation of 2G licences during which CAG haven't only indicted Raja but indirectly called an oversight failure on the ex-minister's role by saying "there is usually an imperative ought to fix responsibility and enforce accountability for lapses".
SC's query on why the PM wouldn't decide in any event . - whether there seemed to be merit in Swamy's petition or you cannot - will harden the Opposition sales of a joint parliamentary committee to probe the alleged scam. This, in return, may complicate the logjam in Parliament for the reason that government is anticipated to resist a JPC.
Swamy's petition against Raja hasn't been vague: SC
The solicitor general defended the PMO by proclaiming that for the reason that CBI was probing the alleged scam, the "sanctioning authority" (PM) was perfectly within its rights to tell Swamy so it would await the actual end result on the investigation before deliberating on if thez Raja really should be prosecuted or you cannot.
Even so the bench left little room for confusion. It put its question dependant on dates and facts - Swamy had filed a petition prior to a PM on November 29, 2008 seeking sanction to prosecute Raja; CBI had lodged an FIR on October 21, 2009 against "unknown persons"; plus the reply to Swamy's petition came on March 19, 2010, on the secretary from the department of personnel and training (DoPT) for the PMO saying the petition was "premature".
"What happened between November 29, 2008 and October 21, 2010?" the bench needed to know, adding, "We accept it which the sanctioning authority was right in awaiting the actual end result of any pending inquiry to defer a determination using a private petition seeking sanction to prosecute a minister. But why was the authority silent for 11 months preceding the lodging on the FIR."
