Reacting to him, Justice Shivraj Patil, Former choose, Supreme Court, said that his report wasn't involved regarding financial losses to the exchequer. In an interview to CNBC-TV18’s Siddharth Zarabi Patil clarified that finding criminal culpability, money irregularities was beyond the mandate of the report.
Justice Shivraj Patil, Former choose, Supreme Court
Here is that the verbatim transcript of his interview. additionally watch the accompanying video.
Q: does one accept as true with the kind of broad conclusion that the Minister has made? is that this the total and substance of your report that every one spectrum allocations together with the beginning up allocation of four.4 the extra one.8 post that and everything beyond six.2 was dangerous and not in conformity with law and procedures as laid down by DoT?
A: i need to form one factor terribly clear within the starting itself. I don't would like to feature something over what I actually have said within the report. more the Minister whereas creating the report public has extensively quoted from my report paragraph by paragraph. So, those are the contents of my report and no matter I actually have stated within the report they're pretty much obtainable to everyone currently.
Q: will your report recommend that from 2003 onwards when Unified Access Service license regime was adopted, the then Minister and former Secretary violated sure tips and framed rules that allowed for the grant of spectrum at the previous policy rates underneath the essential service license. That was a acutely aware call of the govt. at that time of your time to form certain that telecom services stay reasonable. therefore what extremely was the violation during this context?
A: I actually have no comments on each - the choices taken by the govt. at relevant purpose of your time in their knowledge. All that I will say is my jurisdiction or the scope of labor was confined to the procedures and policies at one facet and whether or not they were followed or not. What are the results and what that they had in their mind, what were the gains or losses they will not concern the least bit. I actually have stated and even the components of reports, they need been released. for example a cupboard call of thirty one October, 2001 it spoke of one thing else and that i got to inspect the policy, the rules and therefore the government orders or directions and whether or not whereas flowing they need been kept in read or there have been violations. That’s all my jurisdiction and that i haven't any alternative comment of what happened or what were the regions, why that they had taken a choice. All those things I actually have no comments to form.
Q: One couldn’t accept as true with you a lot of on the actual fact that attributable to the terms of reference you looked into procedural problems. whereas you were observing of these procedural violations did any criminal violation additionally return to your notice and has your report bought that to the eye of the DoT?
A: i need to create it terribly clear and that i have said it in my report that I actually have a involved solely with regard to the procedural irregularities and not with regard to criminal culpability or money implications. they're within the totally different jurisdiction. that's why I actually have said it in my preface of my report itself. I actually have not examined from that angle as a result of doing therefore was travelling beyond my jurisdiction.
Q: therefore your report talks regarding twenty five specific instances from 2001 to 2009 that has been identified by your committee of deviation inappropriate – application and violation of underneathlying principles – have you ever quantified in terms of the entire spectrum given under these twenty five specific instances that has been done wrongly as your report looks to suggest?
A: No. No quantification is there as a result of it absolutely was not needed of being. i need to create it terribly straight and clear that I actually have not quantified in terms of a spectrum.
Q: From a basic reading of the report it looks to recommend that 1st return 1st function a policy maybe existed from 2001 onwards in 2003. additionally it absolutely was place into impact and extremely thus 1st return 1st serve wasn't arbitrarily solely applied in 2008. it absolutely was additionally applied from 2003 onwards – is that conclusion the proper reading and interpretation of your report?
A: No, I actually have said within the starting itself i'll not say. The report itself speaks for it and my commenting whether or not it's right or wrong, whether or not it's correct might not be acceptable. I actually have said it no matter I had to mention in my report that's a foothold that I actually have explained.
Q: My final question to you in terms of rectifications and therefore the suggestions you've got created regarding enhancements with regard to future policy – are you able to a minimum of share with us what are the few most vital recommendations in your read that the DoT and therefore the policy maker ought to implement within the days ahead?
A: that's right. The last term of reference specifically term of reference range eight specifically kind the suggestion and therefore the remedial measures for the long run. I created sure suggestions, vital being the spectrum should be addressing confirmed license and spectrum allocation should be by method of public auction. There should be comprehensive new telecom legislation like Radio Communications Act that is there in alternative countries like New Zealand and Australia.
I have additionally created another suggestion that there should be spectrum audit from time to time. I actually have additionally steered that the allotment of the spectrum created to totally different licenses should be obtainable on web site which should be in public domain in order that everything becomes honest and clear. These are few of my suggestions.
