2G Spectrum Scam

Author: Shruti jain, 3rd year , B.com L.L.B(H), Teerthanker Mahaveer University

ABSTRACT

One of the biggest corruption cases in Indian history, the 2G Spectrum Scam exposed long-standing problems with the distribution of telecom licenses during the 2008 UPA administration. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, the scandal involved the purported under pricing and incorrect allocation of 2G spectrum licenses, resulting in a loss to the Indian exchequer of about ₹1.76 lakh crore. Significant political leaders were involved, including A. Raja, the minister of telecommunications at the time, which sparked popular indignation and legal investigation. In addition to exposing the flaws in India’s regulatory system, this case established a precedent for judicial action in situations involving corruption, since the Supreme Court in 2012 revoked 122 licenses. The 2G Spectrum Scam had a major impact on Indian law about corruption, which strengthened the systems for accountability and transparency in government and resulted in changes to public policy. This article explores the case’s history, court processes, and significant influence on Indian corruption jurisprudence, illuminating how it changed Indian law and public policy.

INTRODUCTION

The 2G Spectrum Scam is a landmark case in Indian corruption legislation that exemplifies the relationship between politics, business, and corruption. The Indian government lost a lot of money as a result of this scam, which began in 2008 and entailed offering telecom companies 2G spectrum licenses at substantially reduced prices. The scam, which came to light during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) administration, exposed the flaws in the regulatory system and the opaque decision-making processes that permitted pervasive corruption.
The disagreement revolved upon A. Raja, the then-Minister of Telecommunications, who was accused of manipulating the spectrum allocation process to favor particular companies. The spectrum, which is a valuable resource for telecom carriers, was allocated on a first-come, first-served basis rather than through an auction to guarantee transparency and optimize government revenue. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India claims that the exchequer lost more than ₹1.76 lakh crore as a result of this arbitrary allocation. This sum garnered public notice and caused a great deal of outrage. In addition to being a financial scandal, the scam had serious political and legal repercussions. Several investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) led to the arrest of famous individuals, including corporate executives and A. Raja.


The swindle had major political and legal ramifications in addition to being a financial catastrophe. A. Raja and corporate executives were among the well-known people arrested as a result of several Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probes. Additionally, it became a major topic of dispute in Indian politics, hurting the UPA government’s popularity and influencing the results of the 2014 General Elections, which saw the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi gain ground. In addition to its political effects, the 2G Spectrum Scam set a new legal standard in India. The Supreme Court of India’s intervention, which led to the cancellation of 122 telecom licenses in 2012, marked a significant turning point in the judicial supervision of corruption cases.
This case demonstrated how crucial accountability, openness, and judicial action are to reducing corruption at the highest levels of government. This page explores the 2G Spectrum Scam’s many facets, looking at its history, court cases, and significant influence on Indian corruption law. With our analysis, we hope to comprehend how this case changed Indian law and public policy, paving the way for other anti-corruption initiatives. This case illustrated the importance of transparency, accountability, and legal action in lowering corruption at the highest governmental levels. This page examines the various aspects of the 2G Spectrum Scam, including its background, judicial rulings, and its impact on Indian corruption legislation. Our analysis aims to understand how this case influenced Indian public opinion and law, opening the door for additional anti-corruption efforts.


BACKGROUND:
India has 281 zonal licenses and is separated into 22 telecom zones.[9] On a first-come, first-served basis, telecom operators were awarded 122 new second-generation 2G Unified Access Service (UAS) licenses in 2008 at the 2001 pricing. The CBI charge sheet claims that bribes were paid and that multiple laws were broken in order to give preference to particular companies when awarding 2G spectrum licenses. A CAG audit found that licenses were given to companies that were ineligible, had no prior telecom industry experience (like Unitech and Swan Telecom), and had omitted important information. In a November 2007 letter, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recommended that Raja change the licensing fee and allocate 2G spectrum in a transparent manner, however Raja disregarded several of Singh’s suggestions. In another letter that month, the Ministry of Finance expressed procedural concerns to the DOT; these were ignored, and the cut-off date was moved forward from 1 October to 25 September 2007.
The DOT declared on its website on September 25, 2007, that licenses will be awarded to applicants who filed between 3:30 and 4:30 that day. Raja modified the regulations so that they applied to compliance with conditions rather than the application itself, even though the first-come, first-served approach for license giving was implemented by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government. Companies were allegedly warned off by Raja on January 10, 2008, when they were given just a few hours to provide Letters of Intent and payments. Swan Telecom was given a license for ₹15.37 billion (US$180 million) despite the corporation’s ineligibility, and then sold a 45 percent stake to Etisalat, a UAE-based company, for ₹42 billion (US$500 million). Unitech Wireless (a subsidiary of the Unitech Group) obtained a license for ₹16.61 billion (US$200 million), selling a 60-percent share for ₹62 billion (US$740 million) to Norway-based Telenor.


ISSUES:
Raja circumvented appropriate procedures and regulations by selling the licenses at extremely low costs. Some telecom providers were unfairly rewarded by this approach.
Raja abruptly accelerated the application deadline from October 1, 2007, to September 25, 2007.
Many businesses were unable to apply in time due to this abrupt change. Businesses had just a few hours to turn in checks and paperwork on January 10, 2008, the day licenses were granted.
While some businesses found it difficult to meet the abrupt deadline, Raja’s preferred companies were already ready.
The Law and Finance ministries would have provided the required oversight and stopped such irregularities, but Raja chose not to contact them.




Impact of the Case:
Economic:
The telecom sector faced a major crisis, with many operators losing licenses and significant financial losses.
Political:
The case caused a massive political backlash against the Congress-led UPA government.
It became a rallying point for anti-corruption movements, including Anna Hazare’s Lokpal campaign.
Judicial and Policy Reforms:
Strengthened judicial scrutiny in corruption cases.
Led to reforms in spectrum allocation, moving towards transparent auctions.
Public Perception:
The case highlighted corruption in high places, shaking public trust in government institutions.


CHARGES ON FORMER TELECOM MINISTER A. RAJA:
Low-cost telecom licenses:

Underpriced Licenses: Although the number of mobile subscribers increased from 4 million in 2001 to 350 million in 2008, A. Raja set the entrance fee for 2G spectrum licenses at 2001 pricing in 2008.No protocols were followed.


NO PROCEDURES FOLLOWED:

Modified procedures: Prior to the procedure starting, Raja made changes to the 2G spectrum allotment procedures. Application Deadline Reduction: A 25-day extension was provided to the application deadline.
Fixed Price Basis: Rather than using a formal auction procedure, licenses were granted at a set price.
Ignored Expert Advice: Raja disregarded the Finance Ministry, Law Ministry, and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) suggestions to auction the spectrum at market prices.

Key Allegations:
Arbitrary Allocation Process:
Licenses were issued on a first-come, first-served basis rather than through a transparent auction.
Several companies allegedly received licenses without meeting eligibility criteria.
Undervalued Spectrum:
Spectrum was sold at 2001 prices, even though the telecom sector had grown exponentially by 2008.
This undervaluation reportedly led to a loss of ₹1.76 lakh crore (approximately $24 billion) to the exchequer, as estimated by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.
Favoritism:
Companies with political connections were allegedly given undue advantages.
Illegal Practices:
Allegations of bribes, forged documents, and violation of telecom guidelines.

Key Individuals:
The main individuals and entities involved in the 2G spectrum case include:
A. Raja: The then Minister of Communications and Information Technology, who was accused of underpricing the 2G spectrum and favoring certain telecom companies.
M. K. Kanimozhi: A Member of Parliament and the daughter of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, who was also accused of involvement in the scam.
Siddharth Behura: The then Telecom Secretary, who was accused of assisting A. Raja in the scam.
Shahid Balwa: The promoter of Swan Telecom (now known as Etisalat DB), one of the companies that allegedly benefited from the underpriced spectrum allocation.
Vinod Goenka: The managing director of DB Realty, another company that allegedly benefited from the scam

LEGAL CHARGES:
Criminal Conspiracy: Raja and others conspired to favor specific companies.
Cheating and Forgery: Involved deceit and forgery in the allocation process.
Abuse of Power: Raja and his associates misused their official positions.
Prevention of Corruption Act: Various sections under this act were applied.

INFORMATION GOT FROM THE CHARGE SHEET:
Manipulation and Favouritism: According to the charge sheet, Raja put    Chandolia and Behura in important positions to carry out their plan shortly after taking office as telecom minister. They rigged the distribution to benefit Unitech and Swan Telecom, which were pushed by people Raja knew.
Ignored Legal Opinions: In order to benefit Swan and Unitech, Raja established deadlines and disregarded the Law Ministry’s advise.


First-Come-First-Served Basis: By redefining the policy to Favor particular businesses, the previous regulations were circumvented.
Technology and Spectrum Allocation: Raja unjustly denied other businesses like Tata Teleservices and Spice Communications spectrum in the Delhi circle by ignoring TRAI’s recommendations and giving it to Swan.

Financial Impact:
Loss to the Government: The actions of Raja and his associates led to a loss of ₹30,984 crore to the state exchequer as reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.
In summary, A. Raja and his associates are accused of manipulating the 2G spectrum allocation process to favor certain companies, ignoring legal advice, and causing significant financial loss to the government, resulting in various criminal charges.

THE ACCUSED:
Ex- telecom minister A. Raja
Ex-telecom secretary Siddharth Behura
Raja’s PS R K Chandolia (right)
Swan promoter Shahid Usman Balwa
Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra
Vinod Goenka, director of Mumbai-based DB Realty
Gautam Doshi, group MD of Reliance Telecom
Hari Nair, Reliance ADAG senior vice-president
Surendra Pipara, group president, Reliance ADAG
Swan Telecom
Reliance Telecom
Unitech Wireless

Role of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in the 2G Spectrum Case:
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) played a crucial role in uncovering the 2G spectrum scam. Here’s a simplified explanation of their involvement:
Background and Report
Time Frame: The CAG’s report examined the period from 2003-04 to 2009-10.
Purpose: The report was prepared for submission to the President of India under Article 151 of the Constitution.
Content: The report focused on the issuance of licenses and allocation of 2G spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications, part of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology.


IMPACT OF THE CAG REPORT
Financial Loss: The CAG estimated that the government suffered a loss of ₹1.76 lakh crore due to the underpricing of licenses.
Legal Proceedings: The findings of the CAG report led to further investigations and legal actions, including charges against former Telecom Minister A. Raja and other officials.
Public Awareness: The report brought significant public attention to the mismanagement and corruption involved in the 2G spectrum allocation.
In summary, the CAG’s report highlighted major financial and procedural irregularities in the allocation of 2G spectrum licenses, leading to legal action and widespread public awareness about the scam.


VERDICT OF THE COURT:

A special CBI court cleared all 18 defendants, including A. Raja and K. Kanimozhi, on December 21, 2017. The court determined that the charges were not proven by the prosecution. The charge sheet was based on selected, irrelevant, and misinterpreted official records, according to Special Judge O.P. Saini. When the witnesses testified in court, the court observed that they did not substantiate the oral comments they had made during the investigation.


The Supreme Court’s previous ruling that ruled the 2G spectrum distribution process illegal was not overturned by the verdict, even though the defendant was found not guilty. The licenses granted during the allocation were revoked as a result of this Supreme Court decision.


CONCLUSION

The 2G spectrum case highlighted significant flaws in the allocation process, including lack of transparency, consultation, and adherence to proper procedures. The financial implications were substantial, and while the CBI court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence, the case underscored the need for stricter regulatory oversight and adherence to fair practices in spectrum allocation.

FAQS


1. What is spectrum?
Spectrum is a natural resource used for wireless communication, essential for mobile networks. It is as valuable as other natural resources like water, minerals, and land.


2. How can the Indian government sell spectrum?
Spectrum can be sold through two methods:
Auction: Companies bid for the spectrum, with the highest bidder winning, ensuring maximum revenue for the government.
Fixed Price: The government sets a price, and companies can buy the spectrum at that price, which can lead to favouritism if not managed properly.


3. What was the 2G Spectrum Sale (2007-2009)?
During 2007-2009, A. Raja, the Communication and IT Minister, allocated 122 licenses for 2G spectrum at a fixed price, significantly below market value. This process lacked transparency and favoured certain telecom companies, leading to a massive financial loss for the government.

REFERENCE:

iPleaders – Case Study of 2G Spectrum Case
https://legalonus.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *