Headline: Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja & Others: An Analytical Critique of the 2G Spectrum Allocation Saga
To the Point
The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja & Others (2G Spectrum Case) marked a watershed in India’s jurisprudence on corruption and public resource allocation. The judgment struck down the allocation of 2G telecom spectrum licenses and licences granted by the then Telecom Minister A. Raja on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional norms. This landmark verdict highlighted the judiciary’s proactive role in scrutinising executive actions affecting scarce natural resources.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Court invoked the doctrines of public trust, arbitrariness under Article 14, and constitutional accountability. The judgment established that allocation of natural resources must be transparent, non-arbitrary, and serve public interest. It reiterated the principle that public property cannot be dissipated at the whims of executive functionaries and must be distributed in consonance with constitutional principles of equality and fairness.
Abstract
This article analyses the Supreme Court’s seminal verdict in Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja & Others, which annulled 122 telecom licenses issued in 2008 under the FCFS policy. The judgment underscores that natural resources are national assets and their distribution must comply with constitutional mandates of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness. The verdict set crucial precedents on the public trust doctrine and redefined the scope of judicial review in matters of economic policy where corruption and mala fide intent taint executive discretion.
The Proof
The 2G Spectrum allocation, conducted on a first-come-first-served (FCFS) basis, resulted in licenses being issued at 2001 prices, despite the manifold increase in the telecom market’s value by 2008. Subramanian Swamy, in his capacity as a public-spirited citizen, approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking cancellation of licenses and prosecution of officials involved.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report estimated a loss of approximately ₹1.76 lakh crore to the public exchequer due to this allocation process. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny unveiled a deliberate bypassing of established norms, such as competitive bidding, thereby violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) and the public trust doctrine.
Case Laws
1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1
The Supreme Court held the 2G Spectrum allocations arbitrary and unconstitutional, cancelling 122 licenses.
2. Natural Resources Allocation, Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1
Clarified that auctions are not the only permissible method but are generally preferable for scarce resource allocation.
3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489
• Established that State actions must be non-arbitrary and conform to Article 14.
4. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1
• Emphasised that natural resources are national assets held in public trust.
5. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (2014) 3 SCC 222
• Reiterated regulatory transparency in telecom administration.
Conclusion
The Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja verdict epitomises judicial intervention to protect constitutional values against executive arbitrariness. By annulling the telecom licenses, the Supreme Court affirmed that public resources belong to the people, and their allocation must adhere to the principles of equality, accountability, and transparency.
The decision fortified the jurisprudence on the public trust doctrine and provided an impetus for reforms in natural resource management. Although subsequent Special CBI Court proceedings acquitted several accused due to evidentiary gaps, the Supreme Court’s civil law pronouncement remains a significant precedent in public accountability and governance.
FAQ
Q1. What was the main legal issue in this case?
Whether the allocation of 2G Spectrum licenses by FCFS policy violated constitutional principles of equality, transparency, and public trust.
Q2. What is the public trust doctrine?
It is a legal principle holding that certain resources (air, water, natural assets) are preserved for public use, and the government is their trustee, obligated to protect them for the benefit of the public.
Q3. Did the Supreme Court mandate auction as the only method of allocation?
No. While the Court emphasised transparency, it clarified that auction is preferable but not the only constitutionally permissible method.
Q4. What happened to the criminal proceedings?
The Special CBI Court acquitted A. Raja and others in 2017 due to lack of evidence. However, the Supreme Court’s civil judgment cancelling the licenses stood independently.
Q5. How did this case impact telecom policy?
It led to adoption of auction as the preferred mode of spectrum allocation and influenced reforms in natural resource management.
By; Samriddha Ray, 3rd Year, St Xavier’s University,Kolkata
