Former telecom minister A Raja on Friday sought a review of the Supreme Court verdict on cancellation of licenses for 2G spectrum, saying it violates the "principles of natural justice" and "judicial norms" and that he was indicted without being heard.
Raja, who has been in jail for more than a year, contended that the findings of the verdict against him are "bound to prejudice" his defence in the trial of the 2G spectrum allocation scam.
"The judgment of this court in as much as it condemns his action and inaction as telecom minister in numerous places is in violation of the basic principles of fair play and justice and affording a person an opportunity of being heard before he is condemned," he said.
"Natural justice requires that if a matter is decided against a person by a judicial or quasi-judicial body, that person should be given an opportunity of being heard and a pronouncement which condemns a person without hearing him would be void. The judgment of the court in the present case has not observed these principles of natural justice and judicial norms and fair play in condemning him without hearing him or giving him an opportunity of being heard," he said.
While canceling the licenses granted during his tenure, the court had observed "the exercise undertaken by the officers of the DoT between September, 2007, and March 2008, under the leadership of the then telecom minister was wholly arbitrary, capricious and contrary to public interest, apart from being violative of the doctrine of equality".
The Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam Member of Parliament said he should not be indicted by the apex court without being heard and contended he had an explanation that "his actions were legal, proper and without favour".
"The findings of illegalities and favour against him are bound to prejudice his defence in the pending prosecution against him in the court of the special CBI judge, where he faces prosecution," he said.
Raja further submitted in his 12-page application that the findings of the Supreme Court are not only bound to influence the trial court but would also be used and adopted by government officials in their evidence to protect themselves.
"The Supreme Court, in the concluding paragraph of its judgment, has stated that the Special Judge shall decide the matter uninfluenced by this judgment but with great respect this observation is of little avail as having regard to the position of this court as the highest court, it is most unlikely that a subordinate court will disregard them and form an independent view," he said.
"The petitioner prays for review and reconsideration of the judgment and order of this court on a fundamental legal ground which goes to the root of the validity of the judgment," he said.
"This court in the judgment has condemned him for alleged illegalities committed by him and for alleged devious method and manipulation by him and alleged arbitrary action by him to favour parties and these findings have been made in the judgment against him when he was not a party in the case, without notice to him and without hearing him or considering any explanation which could have been given by him for his conduct," he said.
