Why in the news? 

Attorney General R Venkataramani, on April 22, mentioned an application filed by the Centre to modify the Supreme Court’s 2012 judgement in the 2G spectrum scam case.

What is the 2G scam case?

• In 2008, under then Telecom Minister A Raja, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) issued 2G spectrum licenses to specific telecom operators on a first-cum-first-serve basis.
• In 2009 ,the Central Vigilance Commission directed the CBI to investigate claims that there were illegalities in the allocation of licenses, following which the CBI filed a first information report against unknown officers of the DoT, private persons and companies.
• In the meantime, the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Subramanian Swamy filed petitions at the Supreme Court alleging a Rs 70,000 crore scam in the grant of telecom licenses in 2008.
• In 2010, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) filed a report claiming that the allocation had caused a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crores to the public exchequer. Raja resigned shortly after.
• In 2011 the CBI filed its first chargesheet, in which Raja was an accused.
• In February 2012, the Supreme Court cancelled the 122 licenses granted during Raja’s tenure. The court found that Raja had allocated licenses in 2008 based on 2001 prices in order to benefit specific private telecom operators.

Why is the Centre seeking a modification of the apex court’s decision?

• Need for Non-commercial Use: The Centre highlights that spectrum allocation is essential not only for commercial telecommunication services but also for public interest functions such as security, safety, and disaster preparedness. These functions may not always align with the profit-oriented nature of auction processes.
• Situational Preferences: The Centre argues that there are situations where auctions are not technically or economically preferred or optimal. This could include scenarios where there is a one-time or sporadic use of spectrum, which may not justify the complexities and costs associated with conducting auctions.
• Court’s Clarification on Auctions: The Centre refers to the Supreme Court’s clarification in September 2012, stating that the auction method prescribed in 2012 was not a constitutional principle and not an absolute or blanket statement applicable across all natural resources. The Court expressed respect for the executive’s discretion in such matters.
• Seeking Clarity for Administrative Process: In light of the Court’s clarification, the Centre seeks clarity on whether it can allocate 2G spectrum in the future through an administrative process if determined through due process and in accordance with the law. This indicates a desire for flexibility in spectrum allocation methods based on situational considerations and public interest needs.

Conclusion: 

Need to implement transparent processes for the allocation of public resources such as spectrum. Clearly outline the criteria, procedures, and timelines for allocation, and ensure that these are accessible to all stakeholders.Establish independent oversight bodies or regulatory agencies to monitor and audit the allocation process.

Mains PYQ:

Q What is mean by public interest? What are the principles and procedures to be followed by the civil servants in public interest? (UPSC IAS/2018)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now