2G trial: You are deposing falsely, Raja tells Attorney General

The Attorney General of India GE Vahanvati continued to be in the firing line of the defence lawyers on the second day of his deposition as prosecution witness before a special CBI court in the 2G trial.

A Raja, former telecom minister and prime accused in the 2G spectrum case, continued with his aggressive line of cross-examination that suggested that Vahanvati had defended the controversial ‘amended’ press release at tribunals, the high court and the Supreme Court between 2008 and 2009. (Vahanvati was Solicitor General of India between June 2004 and June 2009 before he became Attorney General.)

The controversial press release issued on January 10, 2008 dealt with the manner in which the Letters of Intent (LOIs) were planned to be issued to applicants for telecom licenses.

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

Raja has been charged by the court for 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, then Solicitor General of India. 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 R K 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

Yesterday too, Vahanvati was grilled by Raja over the press release where his line of cross examination suggested that the last paragraph of the press release which was struck off was never part of the draft press release that was shown to Vahanvati. ( Read full report )

[caption id=“attachment_644276” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Former telecom minister A Raja.[/caption]

In court today, Raja’s defence counsel Sushil Kumar suggested that during Vahanvati’s appearances before the TDSAT, the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, between 2008 and 2009, and settlement of various petitions and affidavits, he had numerous occasions to deal with the press release of January 10, 2008.

Denying the suggestion, Vahanavati told the judge, “It is not correct for the reason that in the first place I appeared in the Spice petition before TDSAT No. 12 of 2008 in which what was challenged was the decision dated 10.01.2008 denying them licences for sixteen out of 20 service areas on the basis of inadequate net worth. Secondly, as far as the S.Tel proceedings are concerned, what was challenged was the cut-off date, decision of which was apparently taken sometime in September/ October 2007 and which is reflected in the first para of press release dated 10.01.2008. The petition makes it clear that the press release is challenged to the extent of first paragraph.”

At which point, senior advocate Kumar said to Vahanvati, “I put it to you that you are deposing falsely on this point as you had been throughout defending this press release dated 10.01.2008?”

Denying the suggestion, Vahanvati told the judge, “It is not correct.” Vahanvati also denied the suggestion by Raja that his statement to the Court was not correct as he was shifting the responsibility to others.

Vahanvati was cross-examined by Behura on what was suggested by the defence as a change in his stance in court from what he had told the CBI on the number of officers who came to visit him on January 7, 2008, when the draft press release was shown to him.

As per CBI statement recorded in March 2011, Vahanvati states: “…on 7 January 2008 an officer or officers of the Department of Telecom came to my residence and asked me whether there was any stay of any court order with regard to the issues of LOIs.”

However, in court yesterday, Vahanvati had told the judge that only one officer, Behura, came to see him on January 7, 2008. His had told the judge: “He (Behura) came to my camp office at my house with the file.”

Cross-examining Vahanvati on the question of number of officers, Behura’s defence counsel S P Minocha asked “At the time, when your statement was recorded by the CBI, you did not recall exactly whether it was one officer or two officers of DoT who had come to you on 07.01.2008?”

In response Vahanvati told the judge, “Initially I did not recollect, but later on I made it clear that it was only one officer, that is, Siddhartha Behura.”

The Attorney General denied the suggestion by the defence counsel that Behura was accompanied by another officer of the DoT. “It is wrong to suggest that I am shifting my stand on this point at the instance of the CBI.”

It was, however, the final cross-examination by defence counsel for R K Chandolia, then private secretary to Raja, that saw the Attorney General at his most exasperated.

Chandolia’s counsel Vijay Aggarwal, pursuing Raja’s line of cross-examination, asked Vahanvati, “I put it to you that had there been scoring off in the press release without your knowledge, you had ample opportunity, when the file came back to you, to highlight the same, but you did not do so because this scoring off was in your knowledge at least on 07.01.2008?”

To which Vahanvati told the judge, “First of all I was required to give an opinion. There was no question of my recording that the press release was wrongly issued or that there was scoring off, because as I have explained above even if I had seen a draft in a particular form, it was open to them to issue press release in whatever manner they (DoT) decided. It was not within my province to record any complaint in this behalf in the file or otherwise.”

Pressing on, the defence counsel asked Vahanvati, “Does that mean that this scoring off did not affect you at all in the discharge of your function as Solicitor General in reference to this file?” Vahanvati responded, “The scoring off affected me only to the extent of what I saw in a draft form of a press release on 07.01.2008. That is all I have deposed to.”

Vahanvati denied the suggestion by the defence counsel that he defended the press release in a case (Arvind Gupta Vs Union of India, which had among other prayers sought the quashing of the press release of January 10, 2008) before the Delhi High Court despite having known that a portion of the press release had been scored off.

In response to question by the court, whether he was aware that the portion of the press release had been scored off when he was defending it in the High Court, Vahanvati said, “From the press release as finally issued, it was clear that one paragraph was not there, but in defending the writ petition, this issue did not arise. I was defending the DoT as a lawyer and I was not sitting in judgment on their action.”

To which the defence counsel asked, “I put it to you that despite your knowledge that a portion of press release had been scored off, you did not highlight the same as the scoring off had your concurrence from 07.01.2008 itself?” To which Vahanvati responded, “The scoring off did not have my concurrence and the question of my highlighting this in these proceedings did not arise.”

The outburst by Vahanvati led the defence to question, “As Solicitor General, if you find anything wrong in the stand of the Ministry in a matter being handled by you, would you give your advice in public interest or go by the stand of Ministry, even if it is wrong?”

The prosecution objected to the question on the grounds that the question was hypothetical and proceeded on the assumption that one was aware that stand of the Ministry was wrong.

However, the objection was overruled by the judge and Vahanvati told the court that he disagreed with the question “because the assumptions made therein are wrong.”

Vahanvati was not cross-examined by any of the other accused. With the conclusion of his cross-examination, Vahanvati was discharged by the court. Further hearing of evidence will continue on Friday.