AUTHOR- Drishti Gupta, A Student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies


It’s a well- known fact that a diapason is a natural resource that passed in nature naturally just like water, minerals, land etc. a diapason can be vended either through transaction or by fixing its price but either of the two ways can be done by the government only. According to the government perspective dealing the diapason in the transaction is more salutary than fixing a price for the same. The government can favor any company via price- fixing. In 2008, the active government Congress and the minister of information technology Mr. A. Raja allocates 122 licenses of 2G diapason via fixing prices. The Indian government must face a total loss ofRs.1.76 lakh crore because of Mr. A. Raja vended the license for the 2G diapason at a veritably low price.


Around 2007- 09 when the Congress was in active government, Mr. A. Raja was the IT and Communication Minister. In 2008 he allocated 122 licenses of 2G diapason by concluding for the fixed price approach by including a condition to favor some telecommunication companies. As in the fixed price approach, the price is decided by the minister only so in this case he distributed those licenses at a veritably low price and, he did not make any rule and regulation at the time of allowing the same. Not only this, but he also laid over the deadline of applying for the license from 5th September 2007 from 1st October 2007. Due to this preponing of the deadline date, numerous of the companies did not apply for the license and on 10th January 2008 when the license was going to be issued, he gave only many hours to the companies for the submission of the cheque and other documents. At that those companies which were favored by the A. Raja was ready with all the documents and cheque. The comptroller and the adjudicator general of India submitted a report on 16th November 2010 in which he reported that Mr. A. Raja did not take any advice or relate it to the TRAI, Law Ministry and Finance ministry before allowing the license.


Cheap Telecom Licenses  

Entry figure for 2G diapason licenses 2008 pegged at 2001 prices mobile subscriber base had shot up to 350 million in 2008 from 4 million in 2001.    

No Procedures Followed   

He did not follow any established procedure, rather he changed the rules before allowing the operation for the license of 2G diapason. He also preponed the date for submission of the operation without giving any previous information. He opts for a fixed price option rather than transaction styles which is going to be a salutary step for the government which was recommended by the TRAI.    

The most important fact is that according to the report of the comptroller and adjudicator general of India he did not take any advice or suggestions from TRAI, Law Ministry and Finance ministry.


In the charge distance, CBI contended 18 people for the 2G fiddle which includes Mr. A. Raja, his clerk RK Chandolia, Mr. Siddharth Behuraex-secretary of telecom ministry and Ex MD of Swan Telecom Shahid Usman Balwa.    

The charge distance prepared by CBI consists of 127 runners accompanied by 88,000 annexures as proved by Justice O.P. Singh in the special court set up specifically for the 2G diapason fiddle case. The association has likewise recorded three major telecom companies which had been favored with these changes are-   

  • Reliance Telecom the chief of ADAG (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group) Mr. Gautam Doshi, the bunch chairman Mr. Surendra Pipara, and VP Nair.   
  • Swan Telecom-administrative Vinod Goenka.   
  • Unitech Wireless- the MD of the company Mr. Sanjay Chandra   

The A. Raja; Mr. Chandolia; Mr. Behura and Mr. Balwa are in a corrective installation with all those alleged people of the corporates who were called to the court on 13th April.    

All the alleged people were reserved for felonious collusion, deceiving, reproduction, and other different sections of the forestallment of corruption act. Besides this, Mr. A. Raja along with Chandolia and Behura also contended with the abuse of authority position. The detailed information was given in the charge distance prepared by the CBI in which it was stated that Raja with the other community workers caused a loss of around Rs. 30,984 crores to the state bankroll.    

In May 2007, it was affirmed by the CBI that Chandolia and Behura had been designated by the A. Raja in an analogous division with an anticipation to incubate felonious collusion. The charge  distance further pursues that   “ Raja went into the trick with other denounced people and associations with a reason to issue UAS licenses to Swan( as the MD, Balwa, was known to him) and to associations advanced by Unitech, by controlling the need list grounded on the letter of plan  obedience’s as opposed to being rules routine with  respects to choosing  operations grounded on the date of applications according to the availability of the range, ”    

To favor Swan and Unitech, Raja indeed disregarded the law services and progressed with the date which is suitable to them. The charge distance further stated that it was re-imagined to profit made by the commercial at the time of managing the violation of premise strategy.   

 While agitating the double invention and range assignment, it was held that Raja had overlooked the suggestions given by the TRAI. The TRAI had suggested that a designer for exercising a particular invention might be allowed to use that bone by paying the charges fixed on that. Further, it was contended that though TATA Teleservices and spice communication are in the need of the license Raja allocated the rage to Swan in Delhi. By April 25, the CBI would draft the profitable charge distance with all the documents attested with it.


The comptroller and adjudicator general of India had finished the report by March 2010 and had been set up for the accommodation under Composition 151 of the constitution to the chairman of India. The report presented by the CAG was composed of the consequences of the assessment by an inspection done by CAG for the issue of license and allocation of 2G diapason of telecom department and ministry of communication and IT. The review was done from 2003- 04 till 2009- 10.   


Through the disquisition of records and data, it was stated that the High-Powered Telecom Commission hired low conservation individuals from the finance ministry; assiduity; IT and planning commission. It was held that the commission did not notify the offer given by TRAI in 2007 and because of which it wasn’t managed a chance to mileage the benefits from the TRAI’s recommendations. It was also observed that the High-Powered Telecom Commission in 2008 wasn’t counselled at the time of award of 122 UAS licenses.


The Hon’ble Prime Minister also wrote to communication and IT ministry in November 2007, by showing the solicitude for the inadequate range and the extraordinary number of uses for the crisp license, which range its value through the reasonable and straightforward strategy for revision of charged section, which is in present date is benchmarked an old figure which should be reevaluated.   

 The communication and IT ministry gave their quick response over the advice of the Hon’ble Prime Minister. The ministry responded that the issue regarding the trade of the range was considered by TRAI and Telecom commission. Neither the authorities don’t define this, as the current permit holders got the range up to 10Mhz for each hang without any range charge.    

The communication and IT ministry further stated that their ministry adopts a resolution that would be out of line, tone-assertive, capricious, and rough to vend the range to the new druggies as it won’t give them a position playing field. In 2008, by disregarding the suggestions and recommendations of the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the ministry legitimized the portion of range to a new administration without considering the old section charge set up in 2001.


The process espoused by the fleck to corroborate the eligibility of the operation for UAS licenses demanded due industriousness, fairness and translucency and as a result of it, the license was granted to those campaigners also who weren’t eligible for the same. It was set up that in 2008, 85 licenses out of 122 licenses which were granted by A. Raja were distributed to those companies who weren’t satisfied with the introductory eligibility criteria set up by the fleck. These companies have suppressed the data, bared deficient information, and most importantly submitted fictitious documents to gain the UAS licenses and access to the diapason.


The extraordinary court of CBI vindicated all the 18 denounces of the 2G diapason assignment case which includes A Raja and K Kanimozhi. The strategy was exposed seven times prior when the comptroller and adjudicator general of India considered the telecommunication minister Mr. A Raja indicted of causing a loss of Rs.1,76,379 crores to the state bankroll by allocating the 2G diapason license at disposable costs in its report. If we see moment’s script the court yet set up that the charge neglected to demonstrate the charges. The decision of the extraordinary CBI court neither vacated the judgment of the apex court nor it can abstract it from the way licenses issued in 2G range distribution were unlawful. The special judge Justice OP Saini while delivering its judgment stated that the charge distance of the present case depends for the utmost part on misunderstanding; non-perusing; specific perusing, and outside the realm of applicability poring the sanctioned record. Justice OP Saini further observed that the charge distance depends upon some oral proclamations made by the monitor during the examination which the monitor or the spectators haven’t held up in the bystander box.    


After this 2G fiddle came into the spotlight, after six times all the licenses granted under this fiddle were cancelled by the apex court. The special court acquitted all the indicted involved in this fiddle which includes the big names of partner telecom minister Mr. A raja: M Karunanidhi’s son Ms. Kanimozhi who was principal of DMK; her name was listed as one of the perpetrators of one of the biggest swindles in the history of India. All the indicted were acquitted because the execution miserably failed in proving the allegations made against any of the indicted. The court stated that- “There’s no evidence on the record delivered under the steady aspect of the court showing any guiltlessness in the demonstrations apparently devoted by the criticized people relating with an preoccupation for the cut- off date, control of first- start effects out served policy I’ve appreciatively no detention in holding that the charge has pitiably neglected to demonstrate any charge against any of the denounced.”

Leave a Reply

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