2G: Telecom Watchdog turns poodle on Dayanidhi Maran

One of the main petitioners in the 2G scam has absolved former Communications Minister Dayanidhi Maran of wrongdoing even before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) could complete its investigations and file a charge-sheet. Telecom Watchdog’s Anil Kumar has stuck his neck out and given a clean chit to Maran. He has, however, apologised to the Supreme Court for declaring his changed stance in his magazine, Telecom Live, instead of the court. In a new 30-page affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, Anil Kumar maintains that the earlier stance taken by him was wrong and, in the light of new documents and facts, there is no quid pro quo case against Dayanidhi Maran. Maran has been accused of pressuring C Sivasankaran to sell his stake in Aircel to Maxis of Malaysia, in return for which the latter allegedly invested in a Sun TV Group company, owned by the Marans, at a huge premium. Anil Kumar’s affidavit holds that the CBI is also wrong in its ongoing investigations against Dayanidhi Maran. [caption id=“attachment_281625” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Anil Kumar’s affidavit holds that the CBI is also wrong in its ongoing investigations against Dayanidhi Maran. Reuters”]  [/caption] The CBI is half-way through in its investigation and has committed before the Supreme Court that it will submit a charge-sheet by May- end. The new affidavit is controversial because the Supreme Court will now have to consider which of Anil Kumar’s two statements to give importance to. The CBI, for its part, has already pleaded in the Supreme Court that it should be allowed to investigate Anil Kumar as well due to the change in his stance. The other two petitioners in the 2G case – Prashant Bhushan and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta - however, do not agree with Anil Kumar. They say that Anil Kumar has given a clean chit to Dayanidhi Maran in his individual capacity and they don’t seek to withdraw their petition against Maran. Anil Kumar has also apologised to the court for not following the correct procedure. He had gone public about his ‘change in stance’ by writing in his magazine and then writing a letter to the CBI, arguing in favour of Dayanidhi Maran. Since this was a Public Interest Litigation, Anil Kumar has admitted that he should have gone with this information to the Supreme Court. His affidavit says that there was a fight between two private parties – C Sivasankaran and Maxis – for commercial gain that set off the case against Maran, and it was “not justified to be taken up in a PIL.” Holding Maxis guilty of violating foreign direct investment (FDI) rules, Anil Kumar claims Maxis did not pay any bribes to Sun TV by investing in a group firm in lieu of getting 2G spectrum from Dayanidhi Maran when he was the telecom minister. Anil Kumar contends in his affidavit that he received voluminous documents in January 2012, which, if analysed, proved that there was no “coercion” in the Siva-Maxis deal. (See affidavit here ). “I sent hard copies of the same to the CBI, stating therein my stand and dissociating myself from the instant case of `coercion’. However, the CBI has treated my letter dated February 6, 2012, and the said article in negative way, trying to declare my honest interpretation of the documents/facts as `volte face’ and praying for an investigation against me. Little does the CBI realise that if the so-called victim (Mr C Sivasankaran) himself has stated in an affidavit that he was a ‘willing seller’, then how can anyone declare the sale to be under coercion?” asks Anil Kumar’s affidavit. The affidavit then goes on to analyse the new documents, which includes Sivasankaran’s emails to Maxis, IPO details, legal documents, Sivasankaran’s deposition before the Arbitration Tribunal in Singapore, etc. And then he attacked the CBI for the way it conducted itself in this matter. “Mr Siva engaged the services of Mr Louis Freeh, who was a former Director of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) between 1993 and 2001, and is now a practicing lawyer and consultant. He is known to be hard-hitter. He met the CBI officials on May 18, 2011, and introduced Mr Siva to the concerned senior officers. On that the CBI also arranged for Mr Freeh to deliver an in-house lecture at its new headquarters. This was a part of their strategy for a breakthrough. Within two weeks thereafter, Mr Siva came back to CBI with his formal complaint against Dayanidhi Maran alleging coercion in the sale of his telecom business in India (Aircel) to Maxis of Malaysia. A case was smartly made out that he sold the licence under duress but he did not disclose the material facts about his vested interest,’’ the affidavit says. Anil Kumar also ridiculed the CBI’s valuation of Sun TV Direct, the direct-to-home business of the Maran family. The CBI had alleged that Maxis invested over Rs 550 crore in this company at inflated rates even though Sun TV had not rolled out its services. “The CBI, in its FIR, has gone wrong on two aspects. The first mistake is about the market-share. The CBI’s FIR states that Tata Sky was already into an operation for one year (from 2006) and had gained market share of about 50 per cent. This is not true at all. No DTH operator discloses its actual subscriber base as it is not mandated by any regulation,’’ argues Anil Kumar’s affidavit. “The second mistake that the CBI has made is that it has compared two different transactions on the basis of post-money valuation. The valuation of a company is always done on its pre-money valuation,’’ the affidavit says, concluding “if Mr Siva would have got money for his gamble in Aircel-Maxis deal, then the issue of coercion and quid pro quo would not have arisen at all…’’ Anil Kumar’s affidavit is likely to be taken up only next week, as Justice Singhvi is on leave.