Arun Jaitley: Need full and frank disclosure from Pranab

An excerpt from Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley's speech at the Constitution Club in New Delhi on the 2G spectrum scam following following a controversial note from the finance ministry on the role of Home Minister P Chidambaram

The United Progressive Alliance government is increasingly at war with its own self. Even among the ministers, distrust has set in. Let alone a party, the Congress does not even appear to be a coalition.  

A civil war-like situation has emerged among senior ministers of the UPA. The prime minister and the UPA chairperson are mute spectators. The legitimacy of the government has been eroded. 

There are several questions which Home Minister P Chidambaram has to answer in relation to the fixation of the value of the spectrum in 2008. It is not an internal matter of the government. It involves public revenue. 

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee is entirely incorrect in refusing to elaborate on the ground that the matter is sub-judice. Even on March 25, 2011, when the matter was sub-judice, a note approved by him reached the prime minister's office.  

The culpability of the government or its ministers is not merely a legal question. The country is entitled to know the rationale behind the finance minister and finance ministry's opinion as to why the predecessor finance minister and the ministry acted in the matter in a particular manner so as to cause wrongful loss to the public exchequer.

This issue is not internal to the government and the UPA. It is an issue in public domain and both Pranab Mukherjee and Chidambaram must answer these questions on this issue. If no answers are given, the nation is entitled to presume that no answers could have been given.

Questions for Chidambaram:

Admittedly, on November 22, 2007, the ministry through the finance secretary, D Subba Rao, wrote to his counterpart in the department of telecommunications.  He raised the correct questions, namely:

'In particular, it is not clear how the rate of Rs 1,600 crore, determined as far back as in 2001, has been applied in 2007 without any indexation, let alone the current valuation. Moreover, in view of the financial implications, the ministry should have been consulted in the matter before you have finalised your decision.'

Notwithstanding this clear position, A Raja, former telecom minister, decided to allot the spectrum both and in particular fix the entry fee at Rs 1,651 crore which was arrived at by a mechanism prevailing in 2001. This happened on January 11, 2008. 

Fully aware of the situation, the then finance minister, Chidambaram, on January 15, 2008, sent a note to the prime minister wherein he stated, 'Spectrum is a scarce resource. The price for spectrum should be based on its scarcity value and efficiency of usage. The most transparent method of allotting spectrum would be through auction.'  

Notwithstanding this opinion for allotments already made the minister observed, 'In such cases, the past may be treated as a closed chapter...'

The finance minister, thus, altered the position which his ministry had taken in relation to the excesses by Raja. He further changed his opinion in as much as the prime minister made a statement on February, 24, 2011, in the Rajya Sabha stating:

'Contrary to the assertion of the Leader of Opposition, the record clearly shows that the then finance minister while he initially had a different view which he sent to me on January 15, 2008, subsequently consulted the minister of telecommunications and the two ministers worked out and agreed on the spectrum charges which was reported to me in a meeting on July 4, 2008.'

Now the note of the finance ministry dated March 25, 2011, approved by the finance minister clearly mentions that the loss of revenue has occurred because 'the ministry of finance implicitly agreed to the imposition of the same entry fee as prevailing in 2001 for licences allotted up to December 31, 2008'. 

Should the then finance minister not be telling the country as to why his ministry changed its position from November 22, 2007, where it had insisted either on indexation or determination of the current value?

Has not his act of agreeing to the ministry of telecom's proposal not caused wrongful loss to the government of India and a pecuniary advantage to the allottees of the licencees?

Was this not done 'knowingly' since from the letter of the finance ministry on November 22, 2007, it is clear that the ministry knew that the current value would have been different from the 2001 rate which was being charged. 

Question for Pranab Mukherjee   

A finance minister is the protector of the national exchequer. By sending the note dated March 25, 2011, the finance ministry has rendered an exemplary service to the nation. It has, as a protector of India's revenue, placed on record what it perceives to be the factual position.

The charge that the interest of revenue was compromised with, is not being made only by a judiciary which is accused of over-stepping or by an enthusiastic auditor, the CAG or by a motivated Opposition.  

It is being made by a most experienced and probably the wisest man in the government. Pranab Mukherjee cannot hide behind the plea of sub-judice. 

It is a matter which relates to public interest and ministerial conduct. It is not merely the determination of criminal culpability. People have the right to know the full truth in relation to the circumstances under which this note was written.  

We do hope that  having rendered such a long service to the nation, Pranab Mukherjee will not shirk from his public responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure.

And finally a question to the hon'ble prime minister:

What was the hon'ble PM doing when a national loot was taking place? The issue dealt with a matter of revenue protection, public interest and determining the value of a natural resource through an economic process.  .

The prime minister heads the council of ministers. He just can't delegate the responsibility to two ministers and abandon his responsibility, particularly when his own correspondence with A Raja reveals that he had a lurking suspicion that all was not well.