Published: February 10, 2012 00:35 IST | Updated: February 10, 2012 03:04 IST
PM seeking AG's advice could spell trouble for Vahanvati

Shalini Singh
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's move to seek legal advice on whether a review petition can be filed against the Supreme Court's order cancelling 122 telecom licenses could draw Attorney-General Ghulam Vahanvati into the heart of the 2G scandal maelstrom.
Mr. Vahanvati, as Solicitor-General had approved scam-tainted former Telecom minister A. Raja's now-infamous January 10, 2008, press release in file no 20-100/2007-AS-I marked “secret” on January 7, 2008, three days before the 2G scam was perpetrated.
Mr. Raja's press release, which contained inherent “arbitrary and illegal” actions eventually led to the scam. Much of these find special mention in section 70 of the Supreme Court's verdict. For example, the advancement of the cut-off date from October 1 to September 25, 2007, which has been declared illegal, was approved by Mr. Vahanvati. Mr. Raja's claim of following ‘no cap' on the number of licences, while placing a cap through a cut-off date for licence applications eliminated 343 applications from a list of 575.
This violates TRAI's Recommendations as well as the TRAI Act, but was also approved by Mr. Vahanvati. The issuance of new licenses without seeking the mandatory Recommendations from TRAI, which is central to the press release, further violates section 11(1)(a), fourth proviso of the TRAI Act.
Finally, Mr. Raja's manipulation of the first-come-first-served (FCFS) policy which the Supreme Court describes as “having inherently dangerous implications” was also approved by Mr. Vahanvati. This invited the Supreme Court's comment that the grant of LoI's “leaves no room for doubt that every thing was stage managed to favour those who were able to know in advance change in the implementation of the first-come-first served principle.”
“Given Mr. Vahanvati's deep involvement in the 2G scam, it is highly inappropriate for the Prime Minister to seek his opinion,” says lawyer and anti-graft activist Prashant Bhushan.
Ironically, Mr. Vahanvati had appeared on behalf of the government to defend Mr. Raja's decision to advance the cut-off date, but lost in three of four courts in which the matter was heard, including twice in the Supreme Court. Mr. Vahanvati's arguments find mention in the latest Supreme Court judgment, but failed to impress the judges.
The High Court judgment declaring the advancement of the cut-off date as “arbitrary and illegal” in the S Tel matter of July 1, 2009 was upheld by the Bench on November 24, 2009. Finally, the Supreme Court “specifically approved” in its judgment dated March 12, 2010, “findings recorded by the High Court with regard to cut-off date.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2876158.ece?homepage=true&css=print