Special Judge O.P.Saini has delivered the long-awaited order on culpability of P.Chidambaram in the 2G scam. Government sources have welcomed the ruling claiming that "truth has triumphed".
The judge has ruled that PC was party to only two decisions---- that is, keeping the spectrum prices at the 2001 level and dilution of equity by the two companies, Swan and Unitech. (In other words, the judge has concluded based on evidence that the minister was not just aware of the two vital decisions, but was actually a party to them i.e. he was a decision-maker.)
These two decisions are the central theme of the scam. These decisions enabled the licensed companies to earn undue enrichment at the cost of the exchequer. The judge has drawn a fine line between involvement and culpability.
A lay person ignorant of niceties of law may think that the decisions were clothed in criminality. It requires the legal wisdom of a judge to conclude that the cloth , like the emperor's proverbial cloth, did not exist. Perhaps the cloth was civil, but the act was criminal.
It is a remarkable exercise in subtlety to hold that PC has contributed to malevolent decisions but he was not guilty of malevolence.
The judge has ruled that PC was party to only two decisions---- that is, keeping the spectrum prices at the 2001 level and dilution of equity by the two companies, Swan and Unitech. (In other words, the judge has concluded based on evidence that the minister was not just aware of the two vital decisions, but was actually a party to them i.e. he was a decision-maker.)
These two decisions are the central theme of the scam. These decisions enabled the licensed companies to earn undue enrichment at the cost of the exchequer. The judge has drawn a fine line between involvement and culpability.
A lay person ignorant of niceties of law may think that the decisions were clothed in criminality. It requires the legal wisdom of a judge to conclude that the cloth , like the emperor's proverbial cloth, did not exist. Perhaps the cloth was civil, but the act was criminal.
It is a remarkable exercise in subtlety to hold that PC has contributed to malevolent decisions but he was not guilty of malevolence.
No comments:
Post a Comment