2ജി സ്പെക്ട്രം അഴിമതിയെക്കുറിച്ച് ജെപിസിക്കുമുമ്പാകെ പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി മന്മോഹന്സിങ്ങും ധനമന്ത്രി പി ചിദംബരവും ഉത്തരം നല്കേണ്ടതുണ്ടെന്ന് ജെപിസിയിലെ സിപിഐ എം അംഗം സീതാറാം യെച്ചൂരി പറഞ്ഞു. പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയും ധനമന്ത്രിയും ഈ ചോദ്യങ്ങള്ക്ക് ജെപിസിക്കുമുമ്പാകെ നേരിട്ടോ എഴുതിയോ മറുപടി നല്കാത്തപക്ഷം എ രാജ പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയെ തെറ്റിദ്ധരിപ്പിച്ചുവെന്ന പി സി ചാക്കോയുടെ കരട് റിപ്പോര്ട്ടിലെ പരാമര്ശം അംഗീകരിക്കാനാകില്ല. ചെയര്മാന് പി സി ചാക്കോ തയ്യാറാക്കിയ കരട് റിപ്പോര്ട്ടിലെ നിഗമനങ്ങള് ഒരുതരത്തിലും അംഗീകരിക്കാനാകില്ലെന്നും ജെപിസി അംഗങ്ങള്ക്ക് എഴുതിയ കത്തില് സീതാറാം യെച്ചൂരി പറഞ്ഞു.
2ജി വില്പ്പനസംബന്ധിച്ച നടപടിക്രമങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ച് എ രാജ പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയെ തെറ്റിദ്ധരിപ്പിച്ചെന്നും നടപടിക്രമങ്ങളില് സുതാര്യത പാലിക്കുമെന്ന ഉറപ്പ് രാജ പാലിച്ചില്ലെന്നുമാണ് പി സി ചാക്കോയുടെ കരട് റിപ്പോര്ട്ടില് പറയുന്നത്. എന്നാല്, രാജ ചാക്കോയ്ക്ക് അയച്ച കത്തില് പറയുന്നത് 2ജി ഇടപാടിനെക്കുറിച്ച് പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയുമായി നേരിട്ടും മന്ത്രിസഭയിലും നടത്തിയ കൂടിക്കാഴ്ചകളിലും എല്ലാ കാര്യവും അറിയിച്ചെന്നാണ്. ചാക്കോയുടെ കരട് റിപ്പോര്ട്ടില്പ്പോലും സ്പെക്ട്രം ലൈസന്സ് നല്കുന്നതിനുമുമ്പ് മൂന്നുതവണ രാജ പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയെ കണ്ടെന്ന് പറയുന്നുണ്ട്. മാത്രമല്ല, പ്രധാനമന്ത്രികാര്യാലയത്തോട് രാജയുടെ കത്തിന് മറുപടി നല്കാന് പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിതന്നെ ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നുമുണ്ട്. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ എ രാജ പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയെ തെറ്റിദ്ധരിപ്പിച്ചെന്ന കരട് റിപ്പോര്ട്ടിലെ പരാമര്ശം അംഗീകരിക്കാനാകില്ല. കാരണം ലൈസന്സ് നല്കിയ 2008 ജനുവരി 10ന് ഏതാനും ദിവസംമുമ്പുപോലും രാജ പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയെ കണ്ട് നടപടിക്രമങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ച് ചര്ച്ചചെയ്തെന്ന് വ്യക്തമാക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. ഈ കൂടിക്കാഴ്ചയില് എന്താണ് ചര്ച്ചചെയ്തതെന്ന് പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി വിശദീകരിക്കണം. അതോടൊപ്പംതന്നെ ലൈസന്സ് ലഭിക്കാത്ത കമ്പനികളുടെ താല്പ്പര്യപത്രം റദ്ദാക്കാന് സര്ക്കാര് നടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കാത്തത് എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണെന്ന് പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി വിശദീകരിക്കണം.
2011 ഒക്ടോബര് 29ന് നടത്തിയ വാര്ത്താസമ്മേളനത്തില് പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി, ധനമന്ത്രാലയവും ടെലികോം വിഭാഗവും ചേര്ന്നാണ് 2001ലെ ലൈസന്സ് ഫീസ് ഈടാക്കണമെന്ന് നിശ്ചയിച്ചതെന്ന് പറയുന്നുണ്ട്. ഈ തീരുമാനം എടുത്തത് ലൈസന്സ് നല്കുന്നതിനുമുമ്പായിരുന്നോ അതിനുശേഷമാണോ എന്നും പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി വിശദീകരിക്കണം. എന്തുകൊണ്ട് 2001ലെ ലൈസന്സ് ഫീസിനുതന്നെ 2008ലും നല്കാന് തീരുമാനിച്ചെന്ന ചോദ്യത്തിന് ധനമന്ത്രി ഉത്തരം നല്കണം. കാരണം ഇക്കാര്യത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് ധനമന്ത്രിയുമായി ചര്ച്ച നടത്തിയിരുന്നുവെന്ന് രാജയുടെ കത്തില് പറയുന്നുണ്ട്- യെച്ചൂരി പറഞ്ഞു.
Questions to the PM
Friday, April 26, 2013
The following note has been sent by Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on 2G Spectrum scam to other members of the JPC explaining why a conclusive report of the JPC cannot be prepared unless the following questions are answered by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister.
*
Dear Hon’ble Colleague,
The Need for Answers from the Hon'ble Prime Minister on Certain Questions before the JPC
The Draft Report prepared by the Chairman of the JPC, Shri P.C. Chacko states in Section 10.45 the following:
In view of the above, the Committee are inclined to conclude that the Prime Minister was misled about the procedure decided to be followed by the Department of Telecommunications in respect of issuance of UAS licences. Further, the assurance given by the Minister of Communications and Information Technology in all his correspondence with the Prime Minister to maintain full transparency in following established rules and procedures of the Department stood belied.
Shri A.Raja in his letter to Shri Chacko has stated that he had kept the Hon'ble PM informed at each step of the process and through personal meetings as well as during cabinet meetings. The Draft Report also shows that indeed he wrote 3 letters to the PM prior to the 10th January, 2008 when the LoI's for the 120 licenses were issued. The Draft Report also states that the PM asked the PMO to prepare a Note on Shri Raja's letter dated 26th November, 2008 wherein he details the various steps he was proposing to take.
Taking the above into account, it is not possible for JPC to come to any conclusion about the veracity of Shri Raja's claim or the statement in the Draft Report that the PM was misled without the PM answering the following:
1.
Is it true that Shri Raja had met him personally in the first week of January, 2008 as stated in his letter to brief the Hon'ble PM about the procedure he was going to follow? In his submission, Shri Raja states, “Thereafter I met the Hon’ble PM in the first week of January 2008 and this issue was again discussed and he agreed with the proposed course of action of the DoT.”
2.
If this meeting did take place, did the Hon'ble PM agree with Shri Raja on the proposed course of action as Shri Raja claims?
3.
On what specific count can we hold that Shri Raja misled the Hon'ble PM?
a)
Is it about not auctioning/indexing license fees of 2001 for 2008?
b)
Is it about the change in First-come-first-served policy regarding grant of license by which the date of fulfilling LoI first was to be used for grant of licenses and not the date of application
c)
Is it about securing the consent of the Solicitor General to the procedure that was to be followed as stated by Shri Raja in his 26th November, 2008 letter?
4.
On what count did Shri Raja not maintain transparency regarding procedures which Shri Raja was following in his communications with the Hon'ble PM as stated in the Draft Report
5.
Even if the above is true – that Shri Raja misled the PM and did not maintain transparency as claimed by the Draft Report, the following issues still remain, which the Hon'ble PM needs to answer:
a)
Even after LoI's were issued on 10th January, 2008, since the licenses had not been issued, the Government could have cancelled the LoI's and followed a proper procedure. Why did the Hon'ble PM not take action as he had himself asked that the Note prepared by Pulok Chatterjee, Secretary PM, dated 6th January, 2008 be modified to take into account the status after issuing of the LoI's?
b)
The Hon'ble PM in October 29, 2011 had stated – in his meeting with TV editors – that the Finance Ministry and the DoT had agreed on keeping 2001 prices for entry and spectrum fees for 2008. Was this agreement between Finance Ministry and DOT reached before 10th January, 2008 or afterwards?
c)
On what basis did the Hon'ble PM drop the suggestion for auctioning of the licenses he himself had made to Shri Raja in his letter dated 2nd November, 2008?
Keeping in mind the high office he occupies, the Hon'ble PM can give answers to the JPC orally or in writing. Without answers from the Hon'ble PM on the above, it is difficult to understand how the JPC can come to any conclusion regarding the Hon'ble PM being misled by Shri Raja.
The Need for Answers from the Hon'ble Finance Minister on Certain Questions before the JPC
The Draft Report prepared by Shri P.C. Chacko has made a number of observations regarding the Finance Ministry, and therefore of the Finance Minister's handling of the 2G license issues. It is not possible for JPC to come to any conclusion about the role of the Hon'ble Finance Minister without answers to the following questions.
Specifically, the Draft Report mentions in Section 10.43 the following:
The Ministry of Finance have informed the Committee that no communication was sent by the Department of Economic Affairs in response to the letter dated 29 November, 2007 from the Department of Telecommunications. From the sequence of events, the Committee gather the impression that the Ministry of Finance was in agreement with the position explained by the Department of Telecommunications in respect of cross-over fee charged for allowing usage of Dual Spectrum Technology by the existing licensees.
Does the Finance Minister agree with the Draft Report that by not responding to the position as explained by DoT regarding license fees, the Ministry of Finance had in effect given its consent? Why did the Finance Ministry not press the issue of entry and spectrum fee being pegged to 2001 prices in 2008, especially as the DoT had referred to the Cabinet note where it was mandatory to have such an agreement between the Finance Ministry and the DoT as per Section 2.1.2 (3)?
As a formal consent is required from the Finance Ministry to fixing of license fees, did the Finance Ministry give such a consent?
Shri A. Raja is his letter to Shri Chacko has also stated that his actions regarding license fees was with the concurrence of the Finance Ministry and the Finance Minister, whom he had met during the first week of January, 2008. Is it true that such a meeting took place and if so, is it correct that the Hon'ble FM had given his consent to license fee being kept at the 2001 level for the 2008 issuing of licenses?
Why did the Hon'ble FM agree – as can be seen from his note to the PM on 15th January, 2008 – to treat the matter of entry and spectrum fees for LoI's issued on 10th January, 2008 as a closed matter?
Why did the Hon'ble agree on 30th January, 2008 in his meeting with Shri A. Raja to treat the entry and spectrum fees for LoI's issued on 10th January, 2008 as a closed matter?
As one of the most eminent lawyers of the country, the Hon'ble FM was undoubtedly aware that LoI's could be cancelled before the formal grant of licenses and therefore his consent was essential for the entry and spectrum fees being kept at 2001 levels in 2008?
Why did the Hon'ble FM not push for the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rule-4, which makes such concurrence mandatory regardless of the Cabinet note?
Why did the Hon'ble FM not push for the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rule-7, which specifies in the second schedule that in cases which involves financial implications on which the Finance Minister desires a decision of the Cabinet and if a difference of opinion arises between two or more ministries and a Cabinet decision is desired, the matter shall be brought before the Cabinet?
Keeping in mind the high office he occupies, the Hon'ble FM can give answers to the JPC orally or in writing. Without answers from the Hon'ble FM on the above, it is difficult to understand how the JPC can come to any conclusion regarding the role of the Finance Ministry or the Hon'ble FM.
