2G trial: A Raja goes on offensive against Attorney General

An aggressive line of cross examination by the lawyer of A Raja, the prime accused in the 2G spectrum case, saw the Attorney General of India GE Vahanvati get visibly upset more than once, forcing him at one point to urge the public prosecutor to direct Raja’s lawyer to desist from commenting on his responses during the cross-examination.

Vahanvati, who served as Solicitor General of India between June 2004 and June 2009 before he became the Attorney General, is deposing as a prosecution witness before the special CBI court which is hearing the 2G case.

The cross examination of Vahanvati went through some tense moments with emotional outbursts from Raja, who insisted that the witness be compelled to answer a specific question, which Raja said Vahanvati had refused to answer. “This is my last hope in this court,” he told the judge. He went on to say that if he was proved wrong, “I won’t fight this case, I’ll go back to jail.”

More from Business

Hyundai India’s Rs 27,870 crore IPO oversubscribed by 2.28X, largely driven by institutional investors How Indian fintech startups are driving Malaysia’s UPI-like digital payments revolution

[caption id=“attachment_642443” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Former telecom minister A Raja.[/caption]

The grilling of Vahanvati was over the controversial press release issued in January 2008 that dealt with the manner in which the Letters of Intent (LOIs) were planned to be issued to applicants for telecom licenses.

It may be recalled that Raja has been charged by the court of conspiring with his then Telecom Secretary Siddhartha Behura of striking off the last paragraph from the press release that had been shown to and okayed by Vahanvati. The paragraph that was struck off read: “However, if more than one applicant complies with LOI condition on the same date, the inter-se seniority would be decided by the date of the application.”

The charge on Raja is that by “shuffling the priority from date of application to the time of compliance of LOIs, and directing it to be made a policy directive in conspiracy with Siddhartha Behura and RK Chandolia” he manipulated the procedure to benefit Unitech Wireless and Swan Telecom.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

Chennai Ranks #1 in Challan Checks: ACKO Insights for Smarter Car and Two Wheeler Insurance Decisions

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e: Design and road presence compared

In court on Wednesday, Raja’s line of cross examination of Vahanvati was to suggest that the last paragraph of the press release which was struck off was never part of the draft press release that was shown to the Solicitor General.

Responding to this suggestion by Raja’s defence lawyer Sushil Kumar, Vahanvati said: “It is wrong to suggest that when the press release was shown to me on January 7, 2008, the last paragraph had already been cut off.”

Vahanvati denied in court that the policy and the procedures for issuance of new UAS licences were formulated by Department of Telecom (DoT) after discussion with him.

Referring to a meeting between him, Raja and Pranab Mukherjee, then Minister of External Affairs, held in the first week of December 2007, Vahanvati told the judge, “I was only concerned with the first-come first-served policy which was referred to in the note prepared for the then Minister for External Affairs and I understand that the Minister for External Affairs himself wrote to the Prime Minister on 26.12.2007 in which also this was reiterated. There was no other discussion with Minister for External Affairs and there was no separate discussion with me.”

Pressing on, Kumar said, “I put it to you that policy and procedures were formulated by the DoT, after discussion with you and the then Minister for External Affairs, and the same were communicated by Raja to the Prime Minister and this factum of communication was also known to you?”

To which, Vahanvati told the judge, “I have already said that policy and procedures were not formulated after discussion with me and the then Minister for External Affairs. I was not aware of the communication sent to the Prime Minister on 26.12.2007 and this fact was not known to me.”

When defence counsel suggested to Vahanvati that the letter (dated 26.12.2007) written by Raja to the Prime Minister encapsulated his earlier note to the Minister for External Affairs and the discussion between Minister of External Affairs, Raja and him, Vahanvati told the court, “It is wrong to suggest that what was communicated to the Prime Minister as future course of action was based on the discussion with the then Minister for External Affairs and me. The contents of this letter to the effect that ’the discussions with the Minister for External Affairs and Solicitor General of India have further enlightened me to take further preemptive and proactive decisions on these issues’ are not correct.”

The defence remained most insistent when it came to the issue of the ‘amended’ press release insisting that the last paragraph that was cut off was not part of the draft that was shown to Vahanvati.

Kumar asked Vahanvati, “Kindly take a look on the cut off portion in press release and also on your note (reference here Vahanvati’s note to the Minister for External Affairs). Please point out as to where this cut off portion which reads ‘however, if more than one applicant complies with LOI conditions on the same date, the inter se seniority would be decided by the date of application’ finds mention in your note?”

To which, Vahanvati told the judge, “My note in para 4 clearly refers to the first-come first-served policy for issuance of licences and not LOIs. When a person is issued an LOI, he must be given reasonable time to comply with the conditions of LOIs. This would therefore, mean that if there is compliance on the same date between different holders of LOIs, the inter se seniority has to be decided on the basis of the date of application.”

Insisting the witness had not responded to the question, but given an interpretation instead, the defence counsel pressed on, “Is it correct that the scored off portion in the press release is not contained in your note?”

At this point, the public prosecutor objected on the ground that it was a repetition of the earlier question and the witness has already answered the question. The judge’s decision to uphold the objection saw Raja make an emotional appeal to the court, which then allowed him to put the question to the witness again.

In response to Raja’s question, “I put it to you that though the question stands answered, please point out where the scored off portion finds mention verbatim in the note,” Vahanvati told the judge, “Exact reproduction of this portion is not there verbatim in my note, but the substance is very much there. It is wrong to suggest that even the substance of scored off portion is not there in my note.”

Vahanvati’s cross examination will continue on Thursday.