Former Telecom Minister Andimuthu Raja has thrown the gauntlet before the Congress that dominates the UPA coalition by threatening to go on hunger strike on the Parliament premises if he is not permitted to appear before the Joint Parliamentary Committee which is examining alleged irregularities in allocation of 2G spectrum during his tenure. The party is now stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Should chairman PC Chacko refuse permission for fear that the DMK MP may implicate Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister P Chidambaram, the JPC would appear to be privileging Attorney General Ghulam Vahanvati over the former minister. Raja recently clashed with Vahanvati in the special court hearing the 2G matter, calling him a “liar” when the latter denied having vetted the press release that was actually released on the spectrum tender.
Vahanvati was Solicitor General when he gave Raja opinion in the infamous 2G spectrum allotment case. Since Vahanvati has deposed before the JPC and also served as CBI witness in the special court, the principle of natural justice demands that Raja be permitted to present his version before the JPC. The BJP, the DMK, and the CPI-M support Raja’s demand to be heard.
Last month, Vahanvati told the special court that a draft press release he approved on January 7, 2008, while serving as Solicitor General, originally had a paragraph that was missing when it was issued three days later on January 10, 2008. The CBI claims that the former Telecom Minister struck this para off and accuses him of cheating and forgery. Vahanvati previously gave the same testimony to the JPC.
However, legal experts have previously observed that by giving Raja an opinion with respect to the drafting of the Press note, Vahanvati violated rule 8(e) of the Law Officers (Service and Conditions) Rules 1987. These prohibit Law Officers of the Union Government from giving any advice to any government department/Ministry unless requested through the Union Ministry of Law & Justice. Thus, Vahanvati’s being in the consultation process on allotment of 2G spectrum (he admitted seeing the file) is in violation of law, and if his word is allowed to prevail while Raja’s voice is muffled, it will be tantamount to a mockery of law and justice.
Given the importance of the matter, observes feel that the office of the Attorney General should be brought under the ambit of the RTI Act, as he has been appointed under provisions of the Constitution and through an official notification, is Government-funded and governed by Law Officers (Service and Conditions) Rules 1987 and is thus a public-authority under section 2(h) of RTI Act.
The Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, notification No. F.18(1)/86-Judl. dated January 1, 1987, regulates the remuneration, duties and other terms and conditions of the Attorney-General for India, the Solicitor-General for India and the Additional Solicitor General for India. These enunciate the duties of a Law Officer, which may broadly be stated as, to advice the Government of India upon legal matters and to perform duties of a legal character, as referred or assigned by the Government of India; and to appear before the Supreme Court or any High Court on behalf of the Government of India in cases where the Government of India is a concerned party or is otherwise interested. The notification also specifies the retainer, fees and allowances to be paid to the Law Officers.
The notification specifically states that a law officer shall not “advise any Ministry or Department of Government of India or any statutory organization or any Public Sector Undertaking unless the proposal or a reference in this regard is received through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs”.
It is further stated that, “Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules”. It is, however, stipulated that these provisions “shall not be relaxed in relation to any matter where the Government of India or any Central Government instrumentality is or is likely to be affected”.
Given the complexity of the 2G issue and the contradictory statements of all involved in the case, it would be in the fitness of things for the Government to allow Raja to testify before all relevant bodies hearing the 2G matter, if only to avoid the public perception of a grand cover-up.
Finally, future Parliamentary reforms could include giving the post of chairperson of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to a Member of the main Opposition party, as in the case of the Public Accounts Committee.
This would impart a certain gravitas to the committee and ensure better performance as both the chair and the committee would be unfettered by the political constraints of the ruling party or coalition.
The present system where the JPC is formed on basis of proportional representation of the parties in both Houses of Parliament, with chairperson’s post occupied by the ruling party, can never effectively probe scams pertaining to the ruling party or coalition itself. It is thus a huge waste of public money. Bofors is one example. The proposed JPC on the AgustaWestland helicopter deal, which has been opposed by the main opposition BJP and other parties, is expected to end as another farce.
NitiCentral.com, 8 March 2013
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/03/08/rti-should-apply-to-attorney-general-53340.html