IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO, 27535 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Dr SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Poy PETITIONER:
Vs.
Dk MANMONAN SINGH AXD ANOTHER. Resrompests
ARRIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR,
‘PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (PMO)
1, V, Vidyavati, aged 43 years, residing at Flat No, 10 Block No.2,
—
Type V Quarters, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi - 3 do hereby
colemnly affirm and state as follows:
1 am working as Director in the PMO. I have gone through the j
relevant records pertaining to what transpired after receipt of
Uhe letter dated 29.11.2008 from the Petitioner. | am making
this affidavit on the basis of the record and my personal
knowledge of the same. | am making this affidavit only for the
purpose of showing how the various
Petitioner have been duly considered. 1am advised to reserict
Spuldlener have: bemyhlisconsiersd:
thin Affidavit
2. A lever dated 29.11.2008 wi
Subramanian Swamy. The subject of this letter was
received in the PMO from Or:
“Permission for sanction under Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988." This letter made various allegations
a interalia against Swan Telecom and Unitech and alleged breach
ee of Clause 8 of the Guidelines of Unified Access Licences dated
* 4 14.12.2005.
3. In the penultimate para of this letter, the Petitioner wrote
“This confirms that an investigation is necessary,
for which | may be given Sanction so that the
process of law ean be initiated.” ss
He then went on to write,
“i therefore write to demand the grant of Sanction
to prosecute Mr A Raja, Minister for Telecom of the
Union of India for offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act.”
4, On 1.12,2008, the Prime Minister perused the letter and noted
_—_ errr eonoerr
a “Please examine and let me know the facts of this case”. This
ee
‘e
was marked to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister
who in turn marked it to the Secretary, The Secretary marked
~ it to me as Director in the PMO. 1 prepared a note dated
5.12.2008 factually summarizing the allegations and seeking
‘approval to obtain the factual position from the sectoral side (in
the PMO dealing with Telecommunications).
My note was , thereafter “considered at various levels. On
11.12.2008, a copy of the letter dated 29.11.2008 received
from the Petitioner was sent to the Secretary, Department of
Telecommunication with a request that a factual report
regarding the matter may be sent to the Pi PMO.
6 A factual reply dated 13,02.2009 was received fcom the
Department of Telecommunication responding to the PMO’s
communication dated 11.12.2008 giving comments of the
Department of Telecommunication.
In the meanwhile, two more letters had been received from
Members of Parliament, Shri Gurudas Das Gupta and Shr
Suravaran Sudhakar Reddy dated 10.11.2008 and 22.11.2008
respectively. On 24.9.2009, a note was prepared by the
Director in the PMO who deals with telecom issues. It was
submitted for consideration whether the Deparment of
‘Telecommunieation should be requested to: send a suitable
reply to both the Members of Parliament and the President of
the Janata Party at the appropriate level. This was approved. A
‘communication dated 25.03.2009 was sent by Shri Amit
} ‘Agarwal, Director in the PMO to the Deparment of
‘Telecommunication requesting that a suitable reply be sent t
the Petitioner at the appropriate level
8 One Dr Anil Gopal Variath, Advocate and founder of un
‘organization, Law Focus, had forwarded a petition dated
1 19.02.2009 to the President of India regarding prosecution af
Shri A Raja. The President's Secretariat forwarded the same t
the PMO for appropriate attention on 6.4.2009. I prepared a
‘note dated 30.04.2009 in which 1 proposed that the complaint
should be sent to the Department of Legal Affairs for action as
appropriate with a request to intimate the legal position. This
was recommended by the Secretary and also by the Principal
Secretary. The Private Secretary to the Prime Minister raised:
See
query regarding the exact point on which the opinion of the
Law Ministry was proposed to be sought.
ee
This was dealt with by a note dated 20.05.2009 prepared by
een een mT
opinion of the Minty of Law proposed to be sought was aa te
[request \iwas pointed out that in earlier cases where sanction
jas sought to prosecute a ministera decision was oe after
ie obtaining the advice of the Ministry of Law and Justice. This
{ note es Placed before the Prime Mi
matter was discussed with the Principal Secretary.
Accordingly, this matter was referred to the Department of
Legal Affairs ‘on 29.05.2009 for their eae
10, On 30,05.2009 a second letter was received from the Pedtoner
referring to his earlier letter dated 29.11.2008 and referring to
what transpired at the hearing of a PIL in the Delhi High Court
filed by one Dr Arvind Gupta. According to the Petitioner, the
alleged oral observations in the PIL constituted a “judicial
opinion.”
1]. On 01.06.2009, the Hon'ble Prime Minister endorsed on the
4 letter dated 30.05.2009, “Please examine aod disease This
mwas endoread te the Pindipal #Gaciity, who sentcinta the
Joint Secretary concerned who was dealing with the sectoral
issues relating to telecom. On 19.06.2009, the Director of the
said Section, Shri Amit Agarwal prepared a note in which it was
interalia recorded that the Minister of Telecommunications and
IT had replied to Dr Swamy vide his D.O. letter dated
18.06.2009. On this note, the Secretary to the Prime Minister
raised a query to check whether a similar request is being
handled in the Anti Corruption Cell, and to revert. [t was
found that there had been no reference to the Anu Corruption.
Cell in a similar case earlier and the matter was sent to the
Political Wing.
12, As stated above, the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice
had already been called for on 29,05.2009. The Department of
Legal Alfairs stated on #.06.2009 that they had called jor
input/views from the Ministry of Telecommunicatian to enable
them to examine the matter in the right perspective. Since the
reply from the Department of Legal Affairs was awaited, 1
prepared a note dated 21.07.2009 suggesting that the response
from the Department of Legal Affairs on the matter be awaited.
| proposed that the issties raised by Dr Swamy be examined on
the sectoral side. My note was considered at various levels and
approved.
13. Two further letters were received from the Petitioner on
23.10.2009 and 31.10.2009, tn the first letter, the Petitioner
j referred to the fact that the CBI raided the offices at Sanchar
Bhawan and alleged that this “makes it amply clear thar the
Minister had committed offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act for which your Sanction for prosecuting the
Minister has been left to be only a formality." In the second
letter dated 21.10.2009, the Petitioner referred ta the com at
the FIR recently registered by the CBI and alleged that it was
‘mot necessary to carry out any detailed enquiry on whether
these allegations were true or false, He complained that the
‘statements made by the Prime Minister and Finance Minister
were a non-sequiter, (‘le stated thet if sanction was not
promt ie Sour
| ae behalf. In relation to the letter dated 23.10.2009, the Prime
Sr granted by 18.11.2009, he would approach Une courts in his
Minister endorsed a note thereto on 27.10.2009 “Please
discuss" and referred the matter to the Principal Secretary.
y The letter dated 31.10.2009 was received in the PMO on
03.11.2009 and on 04.11.2009, the Prime Minister endorsed
thereon “Please examine’. This was marked to the Principal
Secretary. On 18.11.2009, both the letters were discussed with
the Prime Mi
tet who stated that the Ministry of Law and
justice should examine and advice. At this stage, | may
eters and subsequently, the Petitioner
nition. that in the
cept annexing more and diverse documents including various
ress reports. .
14. “Thereafter, | prepared a note dated 18.11.2009 in relation to
these two letters received from the Petitioner and suggested
that these should be forwarded to the Ministry of Law and
Justice for examination and advice. This was approved on.
18.11.2009, Aecordingly, the letters dated 23.10.2009 and
31.10.2009 were sent to the Ministry of Law fer examination
and advice on 18.11.2009 itself, Reference was made to the
earlier letter dated 29.05.2009, in which a complaint had been.
received from Shri Anil Variath and sent to the Ministry of Law
and Justice on 29,05,2009 far advice.
‘On 08.02.2010, the PMO received advice of the Assistant Legal
Advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice duly approved by
——
the Minister of Law and Justice on 26,1,2010, Parsi? of this
advice reads as follows:
"7. From the perusal of letter dated 23.10.2009
and 31.10.2009, it is noticed that Shri Swamy”
‘wants to rely upon the action and investigation of i
the CBI to collaborate and strengthen the said
allegation leveled by him against Shri A. Raja,
Minister for Communication and Information
‘Technology. {t is specifically mentioned in Para 2
of the letter dated 31.10.2009 of Shri Swamy that
the FIR was registered by the CBI and “the
substance of the allegation made by me
above cited letters to you are already under
_ igecestigation’. If i so, then it may be stated that
ie decision 16 aééord of sanction of prosecution may
nee (oral or ema collected by the
westigation agency i.e. CBI and gther materials
to be provided to the competent authority.”
16./ On 902.2010, 1 prepared another note placing on record the
| advice from the Department of Legal Affairs. 1 stated that
according to the advice received
ym the Department of Legal
| Aftairs, the decision of granting sanction for prosecution may
\ be determined only after the perusal of the evidence (oral or
documentary) collected by the investigation agency, ie. CBI
and other materials to be provided to the competent authorin:
On this note the Joint Secretary suggested that the Ministry of
» Law and Justice could be requested to send an appropriate
response to the Petitioner. ‘This was approved by the Hon'ble
Prime Minister on 13.02.2010.
17. On 4.03.2010, a File Note was received from the Ministry of
Law and Justice, It endorsed the views of the Joint Secretary
and Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Law and Justice dared
22.02.2010 in which it was stated that the Ministry of Lag and
Justice was only an advivory body to tender legal advice and
“they were not administratively concerned with the accord of .
sanction, It was suggested that the Department of Personnel
and Training which is administratively concerned with the!
“matter be requested to send a reply to the Peuitioner,
18, I then prepared a note dated 503.2010 sceking approval to
request the Department of Personnel and Training to send an
Appropriate reply at an appropriate level to the Petitioner. This
~, note was considered at various levels. and approved
19. | ‘Thereafter, two further communications dated 86.03.2010 and
\ 13.03.2010 were received from the Petitioner. In the letter
dated 8,03:2010, the Petitioner alleged that the Chief Vigilance
Commissioner had written 19 the = Minister of
‘elecommunication about the matter and that the CBI bad
registered a case, In the letter dated 803.2010, the Petitioner
stated as follows:
“In the meantime 1 find that you have already
made sufficient enquiries to ascertain whether |
have made out a prima facie case on Mr Raja's
culpability, for his arbitrary, unreasonable and
malafide actions costing the nation's treasury loss.
of nearly Rs. 65,000 crores. The Chief Vigilance
Commissioner has | believe written to the Ministry
of Telecom about this matter as well as the CBI
é has registered a case to investigate this gigantic
i fraud on the nation [see enclosed A-I to. A-7|.7
20. | prepared another note dated 17.03.2010, quoting from the
letter dated 8.03.2010, and requesting the Secretary,
Department of Personnel and ‘raining and Secretary,
"Department of Telecommunication to immediately give the é
status 6f the communication from the Chief Viglacce
Commissioner and the registration of the case by the CBL
21. ‘On 17.03.2010 ‘itself, 1 received @ response from the
Department of Personnel and Training. 1 also received a
response on the same date from the Department of
‘Telecommunication
22. I prepared a further note dated 17.03.2010 in whieh { set out
the responses received from the Department of
Telecommunication and the Department of Personnel and
Training. This note was also duly considered and approved by
the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister.
23) On 18.03.2010, Shri Amit Agarwal, Director, PMO conveyed the
direction to the Department of Personnel and Training to send
an appropriate reply at_an appropriate evel. in the
circumstances, a reply to the Petitioner was sent by che
Department of Personnel and Training on 19.03.2010.
24. Subsequently, in April 2010 the Department of Legal Affairs
informed that the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in the
Dethi High Court. Further letters have been received from che
Petitioner. A letter dated 20.03.2010 was addressed to the
then Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and
copied to the PMO. Letters dated 20.05.2010, 9.06.2010,
30.08.2010 and 5.102010 have been addressed to the Hon bie
{Prime Minister. The letters dated 20.03.2010, 20.05.2010 ané |
9,06.2010 were sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice. The |
letter dated 30.08.2010 was fled since it was observed that
i there was nothing new. Excerpts of the letter dated 5-10 2010
were sent to the Department of Telecom to seek the status of
the CAG audit.
re aner
cane eESEg ean wmeseeet Ae, in
AHO HAS ATES ae
RAENORA ee
sone ge Se Ne
e coven?
ene eo
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi, on 20.11.2010 that the contents of para | are
true and correct based on my personal knowledge. The contents of
paras 2, 3 and 4 of the alfidavit are based on the records and the
portion beginning from the word, “Secretary” in para 4 upto the rest
of the para is true to the best of my personal knowledge The
contents of paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 upto the words “on 6,0¢.2009" in
para G ai based ort tie fecsida ance fa relation. ln the. ecatinoe
beginning with the words “I prepared, upto. the words “Legal
Affairs’ in para 8 which are true to the best of my personal
knowledge. The contents of paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 up to the words
shght perspective” in para 12 are based on the records and the
portion beginning with the wards ‘Since the reply” upto “approved”
fare based on my personal knowledge. ‘The contents of para 13 are
based on the records and the first sentence of para 14 is based on
personal knowledge. The rest of para 14 is based on the records.
The contents of para 15 mre based on the record. The first cw
sentences of para 16-are based on my personal knowledge, The rest
of para 16 is based on the records. The contents of para 17 are
based on the records. The first sentence of para 16 is based on my
personal knowledge. The rest of para 1 is based on the records
The contents of paras 19 is based on the record. The contents of
paras 20, 21 and 22 are based on my personal knowledge. The
3. Somemtsofparas 23 and 24 wre based onthe records
awed na
imu
ee pe ee asta
sereste
BARN yg TE
;