Minister vs bureaucrats: What the special court said in 2G verdict | India News
NEW DELHI: Bureaucrats should notice that an elected consultant needs to be on the helm of affairs of a authorities division as a minister is accountable not solely to his electorates however Parliament as properly, the particular 2G court docket mentioned at the moment.
Particular decide OP Saini, whereas noting that if a minister doesn’t carry out he dangers being “eclipsed of his political profession”, mentioned that former telecom secretary DS Mathur was “bent upon” to not let then telecom minister A Raja do something.
He referred to the statements of one of many senior officers of the division of telecom (DoT) who had deposed earlier than the court docket that he had seen Raja shouting at and arguing with Mathur in December 2007.
“What can a minister do with such an obstructive and dithering secretary, besides to shout at him? A secretary should notice that as per the constitutional scheme of issues, an elected consultant needs to be on the helm of affairs of a authorities division,” the court docket mentioned.
“A minister is a tough core politician, who’s accountable to his electorates in addition to to Parliament. He has additionally to retain the religion of the Prime Minister to remain within the council of ministers. He has to carry out to the utmost throughout the time at his disposal,” it mentioned.
The decide mentioned that if Raja was working towards the federal government insurance policies, Mathur might have knowledgeable the cupboard secretariat or the Prime Minister’s Workplace (PMO) about it.
“Nothing of this type was carried out by DS Mathur. A secretary is a secretary to the Authorities of India and to not his ministry alone,” the court docket mentioned.
Modi’s principal secretary applauded
Former TRAI chairman Nripendra Misra, who’s now the principal secretary to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was applauded by the particular 2G court docket for his dedication in searching for implementation of suggestions of the telecom regulator.
Discussing roles and deposition as witnesses of a number of high-profile bureacrats, it mentioned Misra’s efforts deserve “appreciation”.
The particular decide mentioned a number of letters have been written by Misra to then telecom secretary DS Mathur however the latter didn’t ship any reply to them.
“This reveals the angle of Mathur in the direction of different authorities functionaries in addition to his official duties. The irresponsible and callous angle of Mathur is mirrored by his conduct in not replying to the letters of Misra, who was additionally at one time, secretary (Telecom),” the court docket mentioned.
It mentioned, “However, the document displays the earnestness and dedication of Misra with which he was searching for the implementation of the suggestions. Had Mathur heeded to the recommendation of Misra, issues wouldn’t have gone so unhealthy resulting in the registration of immediate felony case.
“The efforts of Misra for guaranteeing correct implementation of TRAI suggestions deserve appreciation.”
Relating to AK Srivastava, the then deputy director basic (Entry Companies) who was a key prosecution witness, the court docket mentioned his oral testimony was opposite to the official document which was rejected and he was “inconsistent” and “blowing cold and hot on the similar time”.
“His proof signifies how a really senior officer endeavoured arduous to disown and discredit the official document created by him alone and to malign the minister (A Raja),” it mentioned.
The court docket mentioned that the document confirmed that Mathur was “largely chargeable for the mess” within the DoT and it appeared that was awaiting his impending retirement on December 31, 2007 and that he might have awaited his retirement in a extra swish method.
Relating to the then member (Telecom), Ok Sridhara, the court docket mentioned his assertion was of no use to the prosecution.
It additionally concluded that Nitin Jain, then director (ASI), deposed opposite to official document and he testified in a hesitant and roundabout method and his deposition was not reliable.
Misra, Mathur, Srivastava, Sridhara and Jain have been among the many many key prosecution witnesses within the case.