NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday reserved its orders on pleas seeking Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s role as the then finance minister in the 2G spectrum allocation and for the day-to-day monitoring of investigations by two independent experts.
As the apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly reserved its verdict, the central government told it that applications based on incomplete information relating to investigations into the 2G case and their wide reporting by media was having a destabilising affect on the system.
Appearing for the government, senior counsel P.P. Rao told the court that the applications were being filed without complete information and the media was reporting it and “all this is destabilising the system without any justification”.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) counsel Prashant Bhushan objected to the government introducing the new element of “destabilisation”. The court said that Rao had talked about the “destabilisation” of the system and not of the government.
The court was told that the applications seeking monitoring of investigations on a day-to-day basis and probe into the role of Chidambaram were based on “assumptions, conjecture and wishful inferences”.
Petitioner Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy sought a CBI probe into the role of Chidambaram in deciding the 2G spectrum price along with the then communications minister A. Raja.
The CPIL sought the monitoring and supervision of the CBI probe into 2G scam by two independent experts on a day-to-day basis.
Pleading for chamber hearing on the investigations being monitored by the court, Rao said: “Open court hearing of such applications and media coverage without having access to actual contents of the progress reports submitted in sealed covers is becoming counter productive and causing irreparable loss to all the concerned and it is retarding the pace of the investigation and thereby defeating the object of the investigation.”
He said that “it would be in public interest to monitor further investigation in respect of offences not yet taken cognizance of in chambers and to allow the public servants concerned to discharge their duties unaffected by undue speculation in the media based on incomplete facts”.(IANS)