The paper trail
An affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on Saturday details the action taken by
the Prime Minister and his office in response to Subramanian Swamy’s letters
seeking sanction to prosecute former telecom minister A. Raja.
29 Nov 2008: Swamy’s
first letter arrives in the
PMO.
1 Dec: PM peruses the
letter and notes on it,
“Please examine and let
me know the facts of this
case.” Letter is then sent to principal secre-
tary, who in turn sends it to the secretary.
Secretary fowards it to V. Vidyavati, director
in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), who
filed the affidavit on behalf of the PM in court.
11 Dec: Swamy’s letter is sent to the
department of telecommunications (DoT),
requesting that a factual report be sent to the
PMO in response.
13 Feb 2009: DoT responds to the PMO with
the facts of the case.
25 Mar: Amit Agarwal, a director in the PMO,
sends a note to DoT, asking the department
to respond to Swamy’s letter.
20 May: PMO Secretary prepares note
saying the law ministry’s opinion was to be
sought on whether there were any grounds
for such a complaint. PM and the principal
secretary are shown this note.
29 May: The above note is sent to the
department of legal affairs in the law
ministry for its opinion.
30 May: Swamy’s second letter arrives in
the PMO.
1 Jun: PM looks at Swamy’s second letter
and writes, “Please examine and discuss.”
This is sent to the principal secretary, who
then sends it to the joint secretary dealing
with telecom.
19 Jun: Agarwal says A. Raja replied to
Swamy through a letter on 18 June. PMO
Secretary is asked to check whether a similar
request was being handled in the Anti-
Corruption Cell. It is later found there is no
such reference to the Anti-Corruption Cell.
23, 31 Oct: Two more letters from Swamy
arrive in the PMO.
27 Oct: PM asks principal secretary to
“please discuss” the third letter.
4 Nov: PM endorses “please examine” on the
4th letter, which he received the day before.
18 Nov: Both letters are discussed with the
PM, who says the law ministry should exam-
ine the letters and give advice. Both letters
are sent to the law ministry on the same day.
8 Feb 2010: The PMO receives the advice
of the law ministry, which recommends that
the sanction be granted to Swamy only after
looking at the Central Bureau of Investiga-
tion’s evidence in the case.
9 Feb: The joint secretary recommends that
the law ministry respond to Swamy with its
opinion.
13 Feb: PM approves the
recommendation of the
joint secretary.
4 Mar: The law ministry
writes to the PMO, refus-
ing to respond to Swamy.
Instead it is suggested that
the department of personnel
and training (DoPT) be asked to respond to
Swamy, as it is administratively concerned
with the matter.
8, 13 Mar: The fifth and sixth letters from
Swamy arrive in the PMO.
18 Mar: Agarwal asks DoPT to respond to
Swamy.
19 Mar: Reply to Swamy is finally sent on
behalf of the PM from DoPT.