Supreme Court ruled, special court has jurisdiction to try all 2G cases.

Email

New Delhi: O n Tuesday the special court hearing the 2G spectrum allocations case has the authority to try any offence—whether under corruption law or not—as long as it is related to the 2G case, the Supreme Court ruled .
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and justices A. K. Sikri and Rohinton F. Nariman passed the ruling while dismissing a plea by Essar Teleholding Ltd questioning the special court’s jurisdiction in the 2G spectrum case.
“…The special judge has been vested with the jurisdiction to undertake the trial of all cases in relation to all matters pertaining to the 2G scam exclusively, which would include Penal Code offences by themselves, so long as they pertain to the 2G scam,” the apex court ruled.
Essar had appealed against a 2 September 2013 order of the special 2G court, headed by judge O.P. Saini, rejecting Essar’s application seeking a joint trial with former telecom minister A. Raja, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) member of Parliament K. Kanimozhi and others.
Essar’s grounds for appeal was that its case fell under the Indian Penal Code rather than the Prevention of Corruption Act. This meant its case could not by tried by the special court, which was set up under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and would have to move to a magistrate’s court.
An Essar spokesperson declined to comment on the development.
Passing the ruling, the judges cited an earlier verdict of the apex court, which had upheld the special court’s jurisdiction to try criminal cases arising out of allegations surrounding the 2008 spectrum allocations.
On 31 August, the apex court dismissed pleas filed by Vodafone India Ltd that claimed the 2002 spectrum allocation did not fall within the scope of the 2008 2G spectrum allocation case.
“It shows the desperation of the accused to escape tough judges and tough public prosecutors,” said lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who was not a party to this particular case but represents the main petitioner Centre for Public Interest Litigation, a non-profit organization, in the larger 2G allocation case being heard in the Supreme Court.
In Essar’s case, it wanted to “assimilate” itself in the trial being conducted against Raja and Kanimozhi, which would have required the trial to begin again.
Raja and Kanimozhi are facing charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, faking documents, abusing official position, criminal misconduct by a public servant and taking bribes—offences which are covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Essar’s plea arises from a supplementary chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2011 against Essar, and Loop Telecom Ltd, among others, for criminal conspiracy and cheating. These fall under the Indian Penal Code.
It was special judge Saini who took cognisance of the chargesheet in December 2011.
But Essar, along with promoters Ravi Ruia and Anshuman Ruia, challenged the jurisdiction of the special court that is trying those criminal cases that arise out of the 2008 spectrum allocations.
They argued that their case would have to go before a magistrate. Alternatively, they had sought to be tried with Raja and the others.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to dismiss the plea means that Essar will have to argue its case before the special 2G court.
The CBI, which accuses Essar of using Loop Telecom as a front to obtain 2G licences in 2008, opposed Essar’s plea, saying it was an attempt to scuttle the trial, which is at an advanced stage. The CBI has concluded arguments before special judge Saini in the case against Raja and Kanimozhi as well as the Essar-Loop case.