2G scam: NGO for monitoring of probe by experts

An NGO, which alleged that the CBI investigation in the 2G spectrum scam was 'less than honest' as it was not probing many high-profile persons including Home Minister P Chidambaram, today stressed in the Supreme Court the need for setting up of a committee of experts for effective monitoring of the probe in the case.

"In order to assist the court it is imperative and essential to entrust the matter to at least two persons of eminence for monitoring the probe," advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, Cemtre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), submitted before a bench of justice GS Singhvi and A K Ganguly.

The NGO expressed apprehension of the case collapsing in the trial court on the ground that CBI investigation was 'less than honest' like the Hawala case of 1996 involving high profile persons.

Bhushan said several aspects of the 2G scam have not been touched by the CBI including the assets of persons mentioned in the diary recovered from former telecom minister A Raja.

He also contested the submission of the CBI and the Centre that monitoring comes to an end with the completion of the probe and filing of the charge sheet by giving example of various cases including the Gujarat riot cases, saying the apex court appointed the Special Investigating Team (SIT) after the charge sheets were filed in most of the cases.

Bhushan said the CBI probe has to be more independent and should be monitored by a committee like SIT because most of the top officers in the agency are IPS and the Home Ministry is their cadre-controlling authority.

Bhushan said, "The person (Chidambaram) who gave permission has not been quizzed so far because the cadre-controlling authority of the top CBI officers who are IPS officers is the Home Ministry. Reluctance to probe Home Minister is not surprising."

The CPIL alleged CBI has also not chargesheeted Attorney General GE Vahanvati, who as the then Solicitor General, gave opinion to Raja on the issue of licences for the 2G spectrum.

However, the bench shot back saying if any opinion is given by a lawyer, can he be held liable. Nobody will give opinion in such case.

Vahanvati, who has been made a witness in the case, has denied all allegations against him.

CBI during the early hearings had opposed the plea for constituting the committee or setting up of SIT with its counsel and senior advocate KK Venugopal saying it is not possible.

Venugopal had said a strange procedure was being sought to be followed after charge sheets have already been filed in the case.

The NGO alleged CBI was not doing a fair and impartial investigation irrespective of the status of the person sought to be investigated, as was directed by apex court by its December 16, 2010 order.