Chidambaram verdict: Some excerpts from judgement

New Delhi: Judge OP Saini dismissed a petition that asked for Home Minister P Chidambaram to be made an accused in the telecom scam.  The petition was filed by Subramanian Swamy, Janata Party President. He alleges that Mr Chidambaram, who was Finance Minister in 2008, colluded with then telecom minister A Raja to allow mobile network licenses to be sold at rates that were fixed in 2001. 

Important excerpts from today's judgement:

• A decision taken by a public servant does not become criminal for simple reason that it has caused loss to the public exchequer or resulted in pecuniary advantage to others.
• Merely attending meetings and taking decisions therein is not a criminal act. It must have the taint of use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of his official position by public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage by him for himself or for any other person or obtaining of pecuniary advantage by him without any public interest.
• Now the question arises as to what is the role of Mr P Chidambaram. The acts attributed to him by the complainant are, his complicity in fixing the price of the spectrum licence at 2001 level and permitting two companies, which received the licence, namely, Swan and Unitech, to dilute their shares even before roll-out of their services.However, both of these acts, attributed to him, are not per se illegal or violative of any law. He agreed with Mr A Raja not to revise or revisit the entry fee or spectrum charge as discovered in 2001. Non-revision of prices is not an illegal act by itself.
  
• There is no material on record to suggest that Mr. Chidambaram was acting with such corrupt or illegal motives or was in abuse of his official position, while consenting to the two decisions. There is no evidence that he obtained any pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
• There is no evidence on record to suggest that there was an agreement between him and Mr. A. Raja to subvert telecom policy... a bit of evidence here and a bit there does not constitute prima facie evidence for showing prima facie existence of a criminal conspiracy.
• Anybody and everybody associated with a decision in any degree cannot be roped as an accused.
• Mr. P. Chidambaram agreed that it (pricing of spectrum) would be the price as discovered in the year 2001 and also told Mr. A. Raja that there is no need to revisit the same. This decision was subsequently conveyed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister also. To that extent, there is material on record. However, there is no material on record to show that Mr. 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 no further material on record to show any other incriminating act on the part of Mr. P. Chidambaram
• Accordingly, I do not find any sufficient ground for proceeding against Mr. P. Chidambaram. The plea is without any merit and the same is dismissed.