Prashant Bhushan's Affidavit in SC Against CBI

8/4/2019 Prashant Bhushan's Affidavit in SC Against CBI

1/7

IN THE SUPRE E COURT OF INDIAC IV IL APPEALATE JURISOICTIO

/

C IVIL APPEAL NO . 10660 O F 2010In the mISter of:

Centre for P Ie Interes Li 'gat on & Ors ...Petitioners

The Uno n of India 0 s ...Respondents

A SHORT NOTE 0 BE FALF O F T HE P ET IT IO NER SNot charg -.sheeting r. Anll Amb~nl

1, t. a I is e m ajo i s are 0 e r and C i rman 0 Re anoe TeJe(X)n"I2. eSI says a t S an as a company 100% owned by re lance and S -u p by R lance

funds to e tune of Rs. 000 cror s3. CB I says 3 e ployees of RelJance created Swan and d erted Rs. 1000 crores o f

oompany mo eyCSI,' e o re . has argeshe ted Re anee Te com and e 3 em pJoyees, but hano ch r9 sheeted r. Ambanl

5. tt is inco e e l ab ha 3 e yees 001J have created a con oluted maz ofcompanies to disgu se Swan's real nersnip and taken Rs. 1000 crores of companymoney out e a proval 0 Chaimlan and the Board

r. Am an 0 his7. Rellance and r. Amban ou ha e been e real be lary by g8 . 9 access to

obe: 2007 e y d d no ha e) at 2001 p ees8. Soon after Re ee got GSM spectrum (inaddl on to its CDMA spectrum) 20. des

o 18 October 2007, i sold 0 s Delphi In

9. Reliance also rna a dona n to a NGO icl'l cia ms to promo e Tamil c re of

hi ace sed s. Kanimozhlls a d'rector (IA dated 5.5.11, pg is)


2/7

1 ~ ' e la nce go o r 20 circ le s a 2001 pri e e be fo re thedual ch pol icy was mad p Ie on 1 Octo 2007 (CAG report)

11. r. Arnbani, ra her than expe l' g e 3 e m plo ye es (because of om hi camp yhas been c arge sh ted , Its re pu ta t on bad affactJ and I $ ock a s droppeO),

al help O A dt 8.7.11, pg 46)low . rpo ra te 80c0UIl b ll ty and m kes

ot charge.. hHting OatacomMdeocon3. Oa aoom is a oompany set-up by e Dhoo blothers 0 Vlldeocon and HFCL,4. Da tacom was 0.9 on a b a 's of p . as pe r e l da e of appl1ca5 . CBI s ta tes Its cha 9 -s t tha a ery bas is 0 FCFS s ch ang ed a e la8"t

momen t 1 January 2008 0 fa 0 r a .s ele ct fa oom pa ies6 . A fte r c ge ' the bas of FCFS . D a tacom j mped rom No. 90 o. 20 c les ,

ahead of S an n 11 $ (fA 2 5, pg 71.72)17. I howe e r a l ed S n to become No.1' c irc le s o f D a l I a nd um ba e re

the re was extrem e s rtBge 0 spectrum , D e 1 had on ly slot avtaken by Swan

18 . E e r 08 aco rn shou ld a e beco o. l' aU22 cles, o r Swan shoo have beene. n al 13 ' cl $ re i t had app l d

9. Such CU 10 s th ng co no t va happe ed . out a en al consp racy be nr R a ja , S n 8 d V i eocon

20. 0 cha g~s ee 'ng eooon ea ens the pros u tlon case21. Under Secre ary, DoT had sta ad to Jus tice P atll C omm itte e at a Ra aSP

a presen t O n D oT on 10 Jan ary 2008 CIA 25 . pg 91)22. Accused r. S ah ld Ba a as s ted tha t r, V enugopa l D hoo t ( ho owns V ld& OCOn)

en te red DoT on at day us lR a u a r O hoo t ( 0 [$ a 0 assoe a ad wi V td eo oo n) (IA 25, pg 94)


3/7

ot oharg ... hoetlng Tatas23, Tatas re one of e b' gest bene ies 0 ou of m al en Cel , ro y,

pot rays em as a im .us tbecausea ny ca se , o nly S wa n g o

24. Ta a aw d to r GSM seeet m n 20 rc{l ,n e nam 0 d al ech, on 22ndOctobel 2007 i.e. much after th e cu -off da t of 1 Oc ober 2007. en 675plica io ns e re a lready pend i 9 and as pe r FCFS , Ta ta s we re s t' que e

25 . D oT s i tse no clea r as to how to p ro cess e appa tio n d th is was eoq st ons ramed for the advice of Ie 0

26. Howe e on 10 h January 2008, Ta as were aJloted GS spectrum in 20 cir $ at2001 prices (IA 25. pg 68)

27, Tatas 9 ed ts Vo lta s nd 'n C ennatam l (IA dt 10.3.11 Pg 17)

2 8. T ata s, 'u s e ore Il$ re a aIded to hem , m ade a 0tI8 'on of R s , 25 I h 0 aTa , il c tJ l ura l NGO o f which a ccuse d M s. K an lm ozh lls a d rae o r (IA d ate d 5.5.11, P O18)

a 0 t Rs. 200 ero es to 0 K P re sid e t's

29. V . s land al d cussed be n . lira Rad ia (Tata's lobb ) andRajath mal ( 'fe of 0 K Prald nt, mother 0 cc sad MI. K n :mo Q (lA d

10,3.11, Pg 13}30. r . Ra an Ta ta i es a Ie e r to 0 K P res ' e n t r. Ka runan idh i p a ' in g accused

r. A Raja 's te eoom and spectrum a""""' iI",n po i . s , Le e r ha e' e red roughs. ra Radla (IA dt 10.3.11, Pg 18)

o t charge heeting r. G E VahanvaU31 . Ace d r, A Re ' took e o p n n o f t.Vahanva ia eve ry step be f e the saue of

lice es (lA 26,pg 38)32. A i l act ions 0 ich C SI 'n I cha rge -shee t s ta

c - i al cons "racy to be t a e w favO\Jred coVa anva i

a t f ! I Y were m ade'ere cleared by r,


4/7

33. ila c lea i D oT s t. Vahanva tl floo bas ru les 0 a law o ffice rs tha t aop shave 0 be rou ed through law m ' by (IA d t 8 .7 .11 . pg 6, pa ra 9 , 10)

34. Here no t on ly hey re not ro ~ roe op i 'on o f the la twas re 'e ed by th e ministJy (SLP, pg 118)

35 . r, Vahanva tl a aware o r the sa id re jec tion (IA 25 , Pg 44)36, r . Va anva s aware o f t di f ferences DoT (IA 26, Pg 53),

F ancs & e F ance . n " t r y (IA 25 . pg 56)o f m b . e r

37. He was aware o f the rna da to ry procedure unde r T RA J A c as he has dOM severa lte lecom cas s n t pas and tla e sam e was o t be ng 0 1 wed

38. Cha e in th e r y be of FCFS was m ade he approva l 0 r , V a ha n va39 . r. V ahanva approved ex-pos facto dvancemen t o f cut-o ff d a e and cage

o f FCFS .by s ta 'ng I ha ve seen t I H t no es . The Issue rega rd ing new Lol's 8lfI no tbefore a ny cour t INhs t is proposed Is fe ir a nd re aso na ble. T h6 P r& $S R ele 8$ 6 m a ke s(or tra n$ pa re nc y. T h s s ee m s to be in order. S;gned Vah8flval i . 07.01.2008-. (IA 2 6, Pg64..& 7) CB I has clea rly s ta ed a t bo h 858 chang s re m ade in cr i na lc on sp ra cy 0 favo ce rta in com pa

40. . Vahanva uns ecess fu ly dete ed the p re ss t esse 'n courts i OU ny protbu after 3 ars pro tes ted e o re CBI a t the sa press re lease s fo rged byaocus d f. Ra a (SLP Pg 126, lA 2 Pg 6)

1. r. V a anva ' g l s a an~hi t 0 Swan and says a It e l fo r n58 anda as tha t since he has ecked the a no need 0 send i t to th e inJsrry o f

C orpo ra e Affa (IA da ted 8.7.11 pg 43)


5/7

42. eBI as a I y s ta ed tha t S an was 00% owned and se -up by Re ance ()\j o t Iown fu ds

43. I $ ooncei able tha M r. Vahanva tJ wou ld ha e taken a l the above actions bybasic se ru, out h' be ng part o f the cri . al conspl aey. Not

charge --shee ' 9 r. Vahanva ihas on ly le l a pe rson In h igh place ge away, bhas a &0 akened e prose 'on case , e en qua 0 e r a cc us ed ,

Not charge hee ng Mr. Oayanldhl Iran44. r. a ran d ire d a a ll Ies re . 9 to I nses Ad spec tr um 'NO Id appro e e l

by h' (IA 25 , pg 16) and got speC(rum p r i c : n9 r emo ed from the ToR o f the Ca net.' (Ju.tlce PatH report)45. r. aran dl no give lcenses a d spedrum to reeVD ls ne t

Si assn a ran (IA dated 1.6.11, P9 8)46. r . aran apt m ak n g objections and ep see 'ng

appUca 10M (1A25, pg 13)47. Those c la ti s were so g11 by r. a ran e re e rm ed as goo and

rre le an by Jus ' Pa ' (IA 26, pg 10)

is owned by Mr.

48 . t. S asanka ran ep writing ers to Mr, a ran (aques ' g h ' to process hisapp , s and pro es aga in s t the de y (IA d wd 1.6.11, pg 17-2=9)

' reel (lA 25 , pg 31)50. he S cr tary, DoT a dm 'fle d tha t . aran de lay app

pg 31)ns A1rce (lA 25 ,

51, t. S a SC Ina ran w as fo rced 0 se l f f hs ~ntire stake' th'6 company to r. TAnanda K s nan (long time r a m f nd and associate) .h o own s


6/7

. Soon a ffe r a(fA 26, ~ 26)

55, r. aran ensu~ s that Aircel ge t all the icer\&&Sand sp c m need (IA d t.d1.6.11. pg 8)

o ld o f A lroa D oT wa es a IobJ c tlo n s 0 e ssue of I Set

5 6 Soon he fea e r a is p rcha se s 20 e uity i Sun D irec t T v (a fam ily fin n 0 t.aran) fo r aoot) R s. 700 crcres. (IA d ate d 1.6.11. pg 8 ) S n Di rect Tv had no rea luslness at a tim e and pu CMU o f 20% sha &$ for abou , 700 cro res was cfearty

over-priced57. As P r he ag re$m en t axis /As 0 got shares a t e p o f RS. 79 .5 7 pe sha re hile

g ro p con oiled by e fam ity o f M. aran wo Id ge e sam e shares or Rs. 10e ch.

58. I t is d' u t to I d a m o re c le a r ca se o f qu 0 quo deal and use o f m l terition han Is. And ye t CSI II date has not e en r 9 s ered an FIR' thl cue

Other Shortcomings59 . CBI does not men ' at a ll in its charge-s $ about RAJ Act lo la tlo ns a s D oT .

. ou fo Ing ma a ory 11 procedUt8, un laterally de 'sted rom TRAJrecomme dat 0 0 Issue of new ce es, no e p, ro s n dreoommeda t ons on e rge rs acqu s ( 0 e d i ect bene of 0, U n' ech andTa as)

60, CBI does no t m en tion tha change in ou -off date has a ready been s tru ck d own bycourts S$mega l a nd arb r y

6 . CSI does no men ion abo t e" ticn o f T ransa . n 0 Business Ro sassbeen bro~ out in the J I J S ce Shlwa Pa report

62. eBI 'e s to m a e e scam appea r 0 be less se ous han. t se t a Is by ng nu hea rd yards ' o f -the char\Sj8 in dJus ted gross revenue per Hz pe r ye a du' g8 y&at$ 2002-03 to 2007" 0 ca lcu la the a co s up a figure o f R s.

30 ,000 cro es . CAG , is the cons ';u io a l aud ' o r, and as ca ed t 8 IO$Sby using4 di rent more ered ctl e


7/7

I63 . Apa rt from he mO l'ey (a ~ I from Swan to 0 K P r 'en t's fam i ,eBI has so fa r no t

sta an 9 In I cha rge shee t wh ich is a lready no t in pub ic do rna lConc lus ion64. It Is s cle ar the CBI s no do ing a a rand impart ial In e s !g allo n r respect ! e of he

s a tus o f e person sough 0 be i es: ' e t ed . as was d i ected by t is Ho 'ble Courtde o rd er d ate

Prashant Bhushan's Affidavit in SC Against CBI

Documents

Transcript of Prashant Bhushan's Affidavit in SC Against CBI