Judge finds Swamy's evidence against Chidu scattered, scant

New Delhi: On Saturday, Subramanian Swamy made his first appearance at Delhi’s Patiala House court at 9.50 am. He went in the special CBI court to come back after around 15 seconds. “It’s at 12.15pm,” he told a battery of scribes who were eagerly waiting for one of the most anticipated court orders. When a reporter asked a vibrant Swamy about the probability of the court dismissing his petition, he pointed to the roof and said, “its like saying what will happen if the roof falls.” Swamy burst into laughter. At 1.34 pm, special judge OP Saini pronounced the judgment in a packed court room in Delhi’s Patiala House court. The crux of the 64 page judgment is that in the capacity of finance minister, Chidambaram did not act malafide in fixing the price of spectrum. In case of criminal conspiracy, said the court, it has to see whether two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they are acting together in pursuit of an unlawful act. [caption id=“attachment_203606” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“PTI”] [/caption] The court said that there was material on record to show that Chidambaram knew that the spectrum would be given at 2001 pricing. This, according to the court, was not enough to prove that Chidambaram was party to a criminal conspiracy. “There is no material on record to show that P Chidambaram was acting malafide in fixing the price of spectrum at the 2001 level or in permitting dilution of equity by the two companies. These two acts are not per-se illegal and there is not further material on record to show any other incriminating act on the part of Chidambaram,” said the order. The court said that a decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal for the simple reason that it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others. The court said though there was evidence against Chidambaram, it did not prove the home minister’s guilt. “A bit of evidence here and a bit there does not constitute prima-facie evidence for showing prima-facie existence of a criminal conspiracy,” said the order. Just being a party to a decision, said the court, does not mean that the person is an accused. “Anybody and everybody associated with a decision cannot be roped as an accused. One cannot be held guilty merely by association with a decision and a decision by itself does not indicate criminality,” ruled Saini. The court accepted that Chidambaram was part to two decisions- keeping the spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by the two companies. “There is no evidence on record that he was acting in pursuit to the criminal conspiracy,” said the order. CBI special judge O P Saini did not buy the argument of Subramanian Swamy that Chidambaram did not ask former telecom A Raja to revise the pricing of spectrum as he was in criminal conspiracy with the later. Rejecting Swamy’s petition, the court judgment poses 5 questions to him (on page 61 of the order): 1. Whether entry fee for the UAS licences and the price of spectrum was jointly determined by A Raja and P Chidambaram? 2. Whether they have deliberately fixed a low entry fee, discovered in 2001 auction, for spectrum licences? 3. Whether P Chidambaram deliberately allowed dilution of equity by the two companies, that is, Swan Telecom (P) Limited and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) limited? 4 . If so, whehter these facts prima facie show criminal culpability of Chidambaram also alongwith A Raja? 5. Whether there is any material on record to show criminal culpability of P Chidambaram. Read the judgement here: Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. A. Raja & others: (2G Spectrum Cases), NEW DELHI.