Even though the special court gave him a reprove in the case of Subramanayan Swamy he I still in trouble.

This is confirmed by the following article, PC's response to the article and the writers re - response to PC LETTER.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2897623.ece


In this News Analysis, Shalini Singh says a long-drawn legal battle is likely ahead.
Last week, the Congress party celebrated CBI Judge O.P. Saini's decision rejecting a petition that demanded Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram be named an accused in the 2G spectrum case. But a deeper reading of the judge's order, as well as of case documents with The Hindu, suggests those celebrations may be premature.

While letting Mr. Chidambaram off the hook, Judge Saini categorically states that he was a party to two critical decisions taken by jailed ex-Telecom Minister A. Raja. This, paradoxically, draws the Union Home Minister even deeper into the 2G vortex.

Saini contradicts Chidambaram

For months now, Congress crisis managers and Mr. Chidambaram himself have been insisting that he had, as Finance Minister, opposed Mr. Raja's plans to give away spectrum in 2008 at 2001 prices. Simply put, their argument is that Mr. Raja acted alone.

In October 2011, Mr. Chidambaram told India Today magazine: “Even after the 121 letters of intent were issued on January 10, 2008, the Ministry of Finance continued to argue that auction was legally possible, explored alternatives to auctions in view of DoT's objections and suggested updating the entry fee, adopting one of two methods that would yield an additional Rs. 3,028 crore or Rs. 3,400 crore per licence which could be charged up front when the licensee applied for additional spectrum beyond the start-up spectrum.”

Yet, while exonerating Mr. Chidambaram, Judge Saini, in his February 4 Order, arrived at just the opposite conclusion: that “he [Mr. Chidambaram] agreed with Raja not to revise or revisit the entry fee or spectrum charge as discovered in 2001”. [Emphasis added].

The contradictions go deeper. Judge Saini's conclusion supports the Prime Minister, who, on February 24, 2011, told the Rajya Sabha that the two ministers had agreed on spectrum pricing. If there is indeed an agreement, when was it struck and is it on the files?

New questions on Swan, Unitech profits

Judge Saini also finds that, “In the end, Mr. P. Chidambaram was party to only two decisions, that is keeping the spectrum prices at 2001 levels and dilution of equity by the two companies.” Concluding in the Home Minister's favour, he held: “These two acts are not per se criminal.”

However, the Supreme Court does not treat the Swan and Unitech transactions as mere equity dilution or capital infusion. Instead, it affirms that the Swan and Unitech transactions were windfall gains, stating: “This becomes clear from the fact that soon after obtaining the licences, some of the beneficiaries offloaded their stakes to others in the name of transfer of equity or infusion of fresh capital by foreign companies and thereby made huge profits.”

Official documents from January–May 2008 in the possession of The Hindu show that the government anticipated huge spectrum-linked valuations and profits by way of “rent seeking” behaviour of companies involved in such M&A's, well in advance of the Swan/Unitech deals. In fact, within 20 days of the scam, in a meeting between Mr. Chidambaram and Mr. Raja on January 30, 2008, and attended by the Finance and DoT secretaries, it was agreed that these entities should be valued and the government must recover its share of premiums arising from “trade in spectrum.”

Against this backdrop, Judge Saini's finding that Mr. Chidambaram was party to the “dilution of equity by the two companies” raises a key question: Why did the Finance Ministry not insist the government get its “share of the premium” from the Swan and Unitech transactions, despite the “huge profits” being earned by the promoters?

Official memos, minutes of meetings, letters and internal notes with The Hindu written on February 8, 11, April 7, 8, 16, 21, 24 and May 28, 2008 reveal that while Finance Ministry officials initially fought Mr. Raja's illegal moves, they later progressively diluted their stance.

The Ministry first insisted that all spectrum — including start-up spectrum — can legally be auctioned. It then capitulated to the DoT's arguments, allowing 4.4 MHz of start-up spectrum to be given without any price revision. Not stopping at this, it then went on to concede up to 6.2 MHz of spectrum at the 2001 price.

The new documents reveal, but fail to explain why the Finance Ministry softened its stand in 2008, from January 10, the day of the scam itself, by backing off on market pricing for spectrum. This softening extended from the time the licences were issued in February/March, down to April, when the new M&A guidelines were announced and spectrum allocation began, all the way till September/October 2008, when Swan and Unitech finally offloaded their equity for a huge profit. Each successive dilution by the Finance Ministry meant that North Block was acquiescing to additional hits to legitimate government revenue.

Other questions also arise from the contentious Office Memorandum from the Finance Ministry to the PMO of March 25, 2011 which shows the Finance Ministry first standing up to Mr. Raja and then backing off, only to later, on November 11, 2008 again seek revision of entry fee for all future licences given after January, 2009. The Finance Ministry's special accommodation only for spectrum awarded by Mr. Raja is unexplained. This document has been attacked for “inaccuracies” by Congress representatives in the JPC on 2G but the government has so far failed to explain its contents, save for a short statement from Pranab Mukherjee distancing himself from “the inferences drawn.”

The contradictions between Judge Saini's Order, the public positions taken by Mr. Chidambaram and the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court verdict, and the revelations arising from these new documents all seem to suggest a long-drawn legal battle likely lies ahead.

Keywords: 2G scam

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2904365.ece



Union Minister of Home Affairs P. Chidambaram responds to the report “Chidambaram may not be out of 2G thicket yet,” that was published in The Hindu on February 16, 2012:

Your correspondent appears to have missed the crucial point that proceedings under section 200 of the CrPC are ex-parte proceedings. In proceedings under section 200 CrPC, at the initial stage, there is no opposite party or defendant. The Judge will examine the complainant and the evidence that the complainant may produce. Such evidence is usually selective, self-serving and only what may support the case of the complainant. That is what happened in this case too. Nevertheless, the Special Judge found no merit in the complaint and dismissed it. The observations in the order of the Special Judge must be understood in the context that the proceedings were ex-parte proceedings.

However, since your correspondent has interpreted the order of the Special Judge as well as some other documents, I wish to place a few facts so that the record will be complete.

The two acts attributed to me by the complainant were (i) allegedly agreeing to non-revision of the entry fee and (ii) allegedly permitting two companies to issue new shares to foreign investors. The relevant facts are as follows (and they are in the public domain):

(i) On the entry fee charged for the LoIs issued on 10.1.2008, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 2.2.2012 in WP No.423 of 2010 has concluded that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) ignored the “concerns raised from various quarters including the Prime Minister, Ministry of Finance and also some of its own officers.” The Supreme Court has also concluded that “as the Minister of C&IT was very much conscious of the fact that the Secretary, Finance had objected to the allocation of 2G spectrum at the rates fixed in 2001, he did not consult the Finance Minister or the officers of the Finance Ministry.” The Supreme Court has also noted that the meeting of the full Telecom Commission scheduled to be held on 9.1.2008 was postponed by the DoT and the LoIs were issued on 10.1.2008. Thus, it will be clear that the LoIs were issued on 10.1.2008 without the knowledge of the Ministry of Finance.

What happened after 10.1.2008 is a matter of record. After 10.1.2008, notes and discussion papers were exchanged between the Ministry of Finance and the DoT during January to April, 2008. These discussion papers reflect the consistent stand of the Ministry of Finance that auction was the best method to discover the price and it was legally possible to do so. However, DoT declined to accept this view. Hence, various alternatives were explored to raise additional revenue. The final discussion paper that was prepared by Secretary, Finance and Secretary, DoT was considered at a high-level meeting on 4.7.2008. Decisions taken at that meeting were the decisions of the government. One of the decisions was to revise and update the entry fee by adopting one of two methods (GDP growth rate or SBI PLR) and to charge the said amount upfront when the licencee applied for additional spectrum. This decision would apply to all licencees who had been allocated spectrum up to 31.3.2008, including the 122 licencees. The decisions are recorded in the minutes dated 6.7.2008. Therefore, there was never any “agreement” between the Minister of C&IT and me not to revise the entry fee. On the contrary, a decision was taken by government at the high-level meeting on 4.7.2008 to revise and update the entry fee.

(ii) Regarding issue of fresh shares by the two Indian companies to their foreign investors, the FDI policy allowed up to 49 per cent equity under the automatic route. The records will show that until I demitted office as Finance Minister on 30.11.2008, the position was that M/s. Telenor had subscribed to new shares amounting to 33.50 per cent of the equity of the Indian company through the automatic route and M/s. Etisalat had subscribed to new shares amounting to 44.73 per cent of the equity of the Indian company through the automatic route. The funds brought in by the foreign investors accrued to the companies and not to the promoters. There was no question of the Finance Minister “permitting” the Indian companies to issue fresh shares to their foreign investors. No such permission was required and no such permission was given.

Shalini Singh, Deputy Editor, The Hindu, responds:

(i) I am aware that Section 200 CrPC proceedings are ex parte and no contrary claim has been made by me. The article compares Judge Saini's order with Mr. Chidambaram's public statements (obviously made outside the court) and notes how Judge Saini's observation that Mr. Chidambaram “agreed with Raja not to revise or revisit the entry fee or spectrum charge as discovered in 2001” runs contrary to Mr. Chidambaram's public position. As does the Prime Minister's statement in the Rajya Sabha on February 24, 2011, which I had also referred to, wherein he had said: “The two ministers had agreed on this [i.e. pricing of spectrum] because of legacy considerations and I accepted their recommendations.” This is the “agreement” I spoke about when I asked, “If there is indeed an agreement, when was it struck and is it on the files?”

(ii) On the issue of “offloading of equity,” my article pointed out that the government failed to charge its “share of premium” from the “huge profits” earned by firms in case of M&As, which had been specifically agreed and documented in notes, including during his own meeting with Mr. Raja on January 30, 2008. Mr. Chidambaram does not contest my claim but notes that “no permission was required and no such permission was given” by the Finance Minister in the context of the Swan/Unitech M&As as they were within the automatic approval limit of 49 per cent for FDI in telecom. In fact, my article never alluded to the word “permission” or suggested that the same was given by the Finance Minister. I simply questioned why the government never got a share of the premium from the profits made (in the face of documented agreements).

Keywords: Chidambaram, 2G spectrum scam

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

For PC, the 2G case may go the same way as his election victory case. After his 5 year term is over judgement may be delivered that he lost the election or involved in 2G i.e., after setting out and achieving all his goals as Finance Minister and Home Minister.
Going by the statement made by the Prime Minister MMS on the floor of parliament that both Raja and Chidambaram together only had decided on the 2G prices, the common man is unable to understand how PC could be exonerated. One day Ram Jethmalani says he is against black money, another day he is arguing for Kanimozhi bail. Looks like after the politicians and the bureaucrats it is now the turn of the judicial system to milk the 2G.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This case will drag on till next loksabha election.

PC will retire and his seat will be taken over by his son Karthi.

Amul baby will Be the next PM.

MMS and PRANAB are already fighting for the Rasthrapathi Bhavan.

PC will become Governor of Maharasthra.

Kissa Kursi Ka.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.