Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI:

In the year 2008, during the tenure of the then Minister of Telecommunications, Unified Access Services Licences (UASL) were granted. After some time the information was disclosed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging various forms of irregularities committed in connection with the grant of the said UASL which resulted in huge losses to the public exchequer. On the basis of such source information, CBI registered a case bearing No. RC-DAI-2009-A-0045 on 21-10-2009. It is now widely known as “2G Spectrum Scam Case”. The case was registered against unknown officers of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as well as unknown private persons and companies.

While the investigation into the said case was still on, a writ petition was filed by an NGO known as Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) before the High Court of Delhi seeking directions for a Court-monitored investigation. Apprehension of the petitioner was that without such a monitoring by the Court, there may not be a fair and impartial investigation. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.

The Court allowed the appeal as well as the writ petition, holding that spectrum licences were illegally granted to the beneficiaries at the cost of the nation. The Court accordingly cancelled the licences granted to the private respondents on or after 10-1-2008 and issued certain directions for grant of fresh licences and allocation of spectrum in 2G Band. It was also specifically clarified that the observations in the said judgment would not, in any manner, affect the pending investigation by CBI, Directorate of Enforcement and other agencies or cause prejudice to those who are facing prosecution in the cases registered by CBI or who may face prosecution on the basis of charge-sheet(s) which may be filed by CBI in future. The Court also made it clear that the Special Judge, CBI would decide the matter uninfluenced by the judgment was passed in that very appeal, making its intention manifest that this Court would be monitoring the investigation by CBI in larger public interest. The Special Court was set up for trial of the 2G case and a Senior Advocate was nominated as the Special Public Prosecutor by the Court itself, who also agreed with his appointment in that capacity. The Court also made it clear that no other court would stay or impede trial conducted by the Special Court and the aggrieved person could approach this Court for any grievance. In the present proceedings, we are not concerned with the subject-matter of the said trial.

Before proceeding further, it would be prudent to mention in brief the case set up by CBI in the charge-sheet to have the flavour of the prosecution case. Though we are not much concerned about the merits of the allegations in these proceedings, a brief account thereof will facilitate in understanding the background leading to the roping in of the appellants in these proceedings. Accordingly, in compliance with the said order, a preliminary enquiry was registered on 4-1-2011 at CBI, ACB, New Delhi. During inquiry of the said PE, it was learnt from reliable sources that vide a decision dated 31-1-2002 of the then MoC & IT, on the recommendation of certain DoT officers, the allocation of additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz up to 10 MHz (paired) was approved wherein only 1% additional revenue share was charged thereby causing revenue loss to the government exchequer.

Thus, the allegation, in a nutshell, is for grant of additional spectrum by lowering the condition of 9 lakh subscribers to 4/5 lakh subscribers, by only charging additional 1% AGR instead of charging additional 2% AGR which has caused losses to the government revenue. It is further the case of the prosecution that this was the result of conspiracy hatched between Mr Shyamal Ghosh and the then Minister as well as the accused cellular operator companies. The decision was taken in haste on 31-1-2002 itself inasmuch as note was prepared by Mr J.R. Gupta on that day which was agreed to by Mr Shyamal Ghosh and thereafter approved by the Minister on the same day