Upload
zeitgeistasia
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Indias Very Supreme Court
1/2
8/2/2019 Indias Very Supreme Court
2/2
That would be counter-productive because every public functionary could then be driven
to merely passing time and not taking any decisions which could even remotely be
interpreted as being driven by corrupt motives.
The provision for obtaining permission to prosecute a public functionary is there in the
statute books for good and valid reasons. Almost every issue coming up for decision inthe public space lends itself to being decided in more ways than one and any course of
action adopted by the authorities could make them vulnerable to being prosecuted at the
drop of a hat by the affected parties or by the hyper-active NGOs. Saying that such
permissions must be granted within four months or be deemed to have been granted
thereafter makes a mockery of the provision of the law itself. It would have been more in
order if the Supreme Court had ordered the deletion of the provision itself in the Indian
Penal Code and wherever else it exists.
The second judgment on the same subject of spectrum allocation cancelled all the 122
licenses granted by the then Telecom Minister, A. Raja. These licenses were given in
2008 and most companies have made substantial investments in the businesses developedpursuant to these licenses. Canceling them at this stage, rendering them ab intio void,
raises serious questions about the value of government of Indias executive orders.
Of course, those of the licenses which are proved to have been obtained through fraud or
collusion, have no sanctity and can be cancelled by the courts any time. But canceling all
of them in one stroke because they were granted on first-cum-first-served basis instead of
being auctioned to the highest bidders raises serious questions about the sanctity of
Indias sovereign actions. Did the Supreme Court come to the conclusion that each of
these 122 licenses was obtained through misrepresentation, fraud or collusion?
It is doubtful if it is even open to the Supreme Court to exercise that kind of primary
jurisdiction in matters like this. It is always best to leave such things to the courts below
so that the aggrieved parties can approach the High Courts and the Supreme Court in
appeal. With the Supreme Court itself having passed these orders, neither the government
nor the licensees have any idea on whom to turn to. If the honest licensees, howsoever
few they may be, were to claim compensation from the government of India whom would
they turn to?