IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO, 27535 OF 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: - Dr SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Poy PETITIONER: Vs. Dk MANMONAN SINGH AXD ANOTHER. Resrompests ARRIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR, ‘PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (PMO) 1, V, Vidyavati, aged 43 years, residing at Flat No, 10 Block No.2, — Type V Quarters, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi - 3 do hereby colemnly affirm and state as follows: 1 am working as Director in the PMO. I have gone through the j relevant records pertaining to what transpired after receipt of Uhe letter dated 29.11.2008 from the Petitioner. | am making this affidavit on the basis of the record and my personal knowledge of the same. | am making this affidavit only for the purpose of showing how the various Petitioner have been duly considered. 1am advised to reserict Spuldlener have: bemyhlisconsiersd: thin Affidavit 2. A lever dated 29.11.2008 wi Subramanian Swamy. The subject of this letter was received in the PMO from Or: “Permission for sanction under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988." This letter made various allegations a interalia against Swan Telecom and Unitech and alleged breach ee of Clause 8 of the Guidelines of Unified Access Licences dated * 4 14.12.2005. 3. In the penultimate para of this letter, the Petitioner wrote “This confirms that an investigation is necessary, for which | may be given Sanction so that the process of law ean be initiated.” ss He then went on to write, “i therefore write to demand the grant of Sanction to prosecute Mr A Raja, Minister for Telecom of the Union of India for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.” 4, On 1.12,2008, the Prime Minister perused the letter and noted _—_ errr eonoerr a “Please examine and let me know the facts of this case”. This ee ‘e was marked to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister who in turn marked it to the Secretary, The Secretary marked ~ it to me as Director in the PMO. 1 prepared a note dated 5.12.2008 factually summarizing the allegations and seeking ‘approval to obtain the factual position from the sectoral side (in the PMO dealing with Telecommunications). My note was , thereafter “considered at various levels. On 11.12.2008, a copy of the letter dated 29.11.2008 received from the Petitioner was sent to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication with a request that a factual report regarding the matter may be sent to the Pi PMO. 6 A factual reply dated 13,02.2009 was received fcom the Department of Telecommunication responding to the PMO’s communication dated 11.12.2008 giving comments of the Department of Telecommunication. In the meanwhile, two more letters had been received from Members of Parliament, Shri Gurudas Das Gupta and Shr Suravaran Sudhakar Reddy dated 10.11.2008 and 22.11.2008 respectively. On 24.9.2009, a note was prepared by the Director in the PMO who deals with telecom issues. It was submitted for consideration whether the Deparment of ‘Telecommunieation should be requested to: send a suitable reply to both the Members of Parliament and the President of the Janata Party at the appropriate level. This was approved. A ‘communication dated 25.03.2009 was sent by Shri Amit } ‘Agarwal, Director in the PMO to the Deparment of ‘Telecommunication requesting that a suitable reply be sent t the Petitioner at the appropriate level 8 One Dr Anil Gopal Variath, Advocate and founder of un ‘organization, Law Focus, had forwarded a petition dated 1 19.02.2009 to the President of India regarding prosecution af Shri A Raja. The President's Secretariat forwarded the same t the PMO for appropriate attention on 6.4.2009. I prepared a ‘note dated 30.04.2009 in which 1 proposed that the complaint should be sent to the Department of Legal Affairs for action as appropriate with a request to intimate the legal position. This was recommended by the Secretary and also by the Principal Secretary. The Private Secretary to the Prime Minister raised: See query regarding the exact point on which the opinion of the Law Ministry was proposed to be sought. ee This was dealt with by a note dated 20.05.2009 prepared by een een mT opinion of the Minty of Law proposed to be sought was aa te [request \iwas pointed out that in earlier cases where sanction jas sought to prosecute a ministera decision was oe after ie obtaining the advice of the Ministry of Law and Justice. This { note es Placed before the Prime Mi matter was discussed with the Principal Secretary. Accordingly, this matter was referred to the Department of Legal Affairs ‘on 29.05.2009 for their eae 10, On 30,05.2009 a second letter was received from the Pedtoner referring to his earlier letter dated 29.11.2008 and referring to what transpired at the hearing of a PIL in the Delhi High Court filed by one Dr Arvind Gupta. According to the Petitioner, the alleged oral observations in the PIL constituted a “judicial opinion.” 1]. On 01.06.2009, the Hon'ble Prime Minister endorsed on the 4 letter dated 30.05.2009, “Please examine aod disease This mwas endoread te the Pindipal #Gaciity, who sentcinta the Joint Secretary concerned who was dealing with the sectoral issues relating to telecom. On 19.06.2009, the Director of the said Section, Shri Amit Agarwal prepared a note in which it was interalia recorded that the Minister of Telecommunications and IT had replied to Dr Swamy vide his D.O. letter dated 18.06.2009. On this note, the Secretary to the Prime Minister raised a query to check whether a similar request is being handled in the Anti Corruption Cell, and to revert. [t was found that there had been no reference to the Anu Corruption. Cell in a similar case earlier and the matter was sent to the Political Wing. 12, As stated above, the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice had already been called for on 29,05.2009. The Department of Legal Alfairs stated on #.06.2009 that they had called jor input/views from the Ministry of Telecommunicatian to enable them to examine the matter in the right perspective. Since the reply from the Department of Legal Affairs was awaited, 1 prepared a note dated 21.07.2009 suggesting that the response from the Department of Legal Affairs on the matter be awaited. | proposed that the issties raised by Dr Swamy be examined on the sectoral side. My note was considered at various levels and approved. 13. Two further letters were received from the Petitioner on 23.10.2009 and 31.10.2009, tn the first letter, the Petitioner j referred to the fact that the CBI raided the offices at Sanchar Bhawan and alleged that this “makes it amply clear thar the Minister had committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for which your Sanction for prosecuting the Minister has been left to be only a formality." In the second letter dated 21.10.2009, the Petitioner referred ta the com at the FIR recently registered by the CBI and alleged that it was ‘mot necessary to carry out any detailed enquiry on whether these allegations were true or false, He complained that the ‘statements made by the Prime Minister and Finance Minister were a non-sequiter, (‘le stated thet if sanction was not promt ie Sour | ae behalf. In relation to the letter dated 23.10.2009, the Prime Sr granted by 18.11.2009, he would approach Une courts in his Minister endorsed a note thereto on 27.10.2009 “Please discuss" and referred the matter to the Principal Secretary. y The letter dated 31.10.2009 was received in the PMO on 03.11.2009 and on 04.11.2009, the Prime Minister endorsed thereon “Please examine’. This was marked to the Principal Secretary. On 18.11.2009, both the letters were discussed with the Prime Mi tet who stated that the Ministry of Law and justice should examine and advice. At this stage, | may eters and subsequently, the Petitioner nition. that in the cept annexing more and diverse documents including various ress reports. . 14. “Thereafter, | prepared a note dated 18.11.2009 in relation to these two letters received from the Petitioner and suggested that these should be forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice for examination and advice. This was approved on. 18.11.2009, Aecordingly, the letters dated 23.10.2009 and 31.10.2009 were sent to the Ministry of Law fer examination and advice on 18.11.2009 itself, Reference was made to the earlier letter dated 29.05.2009, in which a complaint had been. received from Shri Anil Variath and sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice on 29,05,2009 far advice. ‘On 08.02.2010, the PMO received advice of the Assistant Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice duly approved by —— the Minister of Law and Justice on 26,1,2010, Parsi? of this advice reads as follows: "7. From the perusal of letter dated 23.10.2009 and 31.10.2009, it is noticed that Shri Swamy” ‘wants to rely upon the action and investigation of i the CBI to collaborate and strengthen the said allegation leveled by him against Shri A. Raja, Minister for Communication and Information ‘Technology. {t is specifically mentioned in Para 2 of the letter dated 31.10.2009 of Shri Swamy that the FIR was registered by the CBI and “the substance of the allegation made by me above cited letters to you are already under _ igecestigation’. If i so, then it may be stated that ie decision 16 aééord of sanction of prosecution may nee (oral or ema collected by the westigation agency i.e. CBI and gther materials to be provided to the competent authority.” 16./ On 902.2010, 1 prepared another note placing on record the | advice from the Department of Legal Affairs. 1 stated that according to the advice received ym the Department of Legal | Aftairs, the decision of granting sanction for prosecution may \ be determined only after the perusal of the evidence (oral or documentary) collected by the investigation agency, ie. CBI and other materials to be provided to the competent authorin: On this note the Joint Secretary suggested that the Ministry of » Law and Justice could be requested to send an appropriate response to the Petitioner. ‘This was approved by the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 13.02.2010. 17. On 4.03.2010, a File Note was received from the Ministry of Law and Justice, It endorsed the views of the Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Law and Justice dared 22.02.2010 in which it was stated that the Ministry of Lag and Justice was only an advivory body to tender legal advice and “they were not administratively concerned with the accord of . sanction, It was suggested that the Department of Personnel and Training which is administratively concerned with the! “matter be requested to send a reply to the Peuitioner, 18, I then prepared a note dated 503.2010 sceking approval to request the Department of Personnel and Training to send an Appropriate reply at an appropriate level to the Petitioner. This ~, note was considered at various levels. and approved 19. | ‘Thereafter, two further communications dated 86.03.2010 and \ 13.03.2010 were received from the Petitioner. In the letter dated 8,03:2010, the Petitioner alleged that the Chief Vigilance Commissioner had written 19 the = Minister of ‘elecommunication about the matter and that the CBI bad registered a case, In the letter dated 803.2010, the Petitioner stated as follows: “In the meantime 1 find that you have already made sufficient enquiries to ascertain whether | have made out a prima facie case on Mr Raja's culpability, for his arbitrary, unreasonable and malafide actions costing the nation's treasury loss. of nearly Rs. 65,000 crores. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner has | believe written to the Ministry of Telecom about this matter as well as the CBI é has registered a case to investigate this gigantic i fraud on the nation [see enclosed A-I to. A-7|.7 20. | prepared another note dated 17.03.2010, quoting from the letter dated 8.03.2010, and requesting the Secretary, Department of Personnel and ‘raining and Secretary, "Department of Telecommunication to immediately give the é status 6f the communication from the Chief Viglacce Commissioner and the registration of the case by the CBL 21. ‘On 17.03.2010 ‘itself, 1 received @ response from the Department of Personnel and Training. 1 also received a response on the same date from the Department of ‘Telecommunication 22. I prepared a further note dated 17.03.2010 in whieh { set out the responses received from the Department of Telecommunication and the Department of Personnel and Training. This note was also duly considered and approved by the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. 23) On 18.03.2010, Shri Amit Agarwal, Director, PMO conveyed the direction to the Department of Personnel and Training to send an appropriate reply at_an appropriate evel. in the circumstances, a reply to the Petitioner was sent by che Department of Personnel and Training on 19.03.2010. 24. Subsequently, in April 2010 the Department of Legal Affairs informed that the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in the Dethi High Court. Further letters have been received from che Petitioner. A letter dated 20.03.2010 was addressed to the then Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and copied to the PMO. Letters dated 20.05.2010, 9.06.2010, 30.08.2010 and 5.102010 have been addressed to the Hon bie {Prime Minister. The letters dated 20.03.2010, 20.05.2010 ané | 9,06.2010 were sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice. The | letter dated 30.08.2010 was fled since it was observed that i there was nothing new. Excerpts of the letter dated 5-10 2010 were sent to the Department of Telecom to seek the status of the CAG audit. re aner cane eESEg ean wmeseeet Ae, in AHO HAS ATES ae RAENORA ee sone ge Se Ne e coven? ene eo VERIFICATION Verified at New Delhi, on 20.11.2010 that the contents of para | are true and correct based on my personal knowledge. The contents of paras 2, 3 and 4 of the alfidavit are based on the records and the portion beginning from the word, “Secretary” in para 4 upto the rest of the para is true to the best of my personal knowledge The contents of paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 upto the words “on 6,0¢.2009" in para G ai based ort tie fecsida ance fa relation. ln the. ecatinoe beginning with the words “I prepared, upto. the words “Legal Affairs’ in para 8 which are true to the best of my personal knowledge. The contents of paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 up to the words shght perspective” in para 12 are based on the records and the portion beginning with the wards ‘Since the reply” upto “approved” fare based on my personal knowledge. ‘The contents of para 13 are based on the records and the first sentence of para 14 is based on personal knowledge. The rest of para 14 is based on the records. The contents of para 15 mre based on the record. The first cw sentences of para 16-are based on my personal knowledge, The rest of para 16 is based on the records. The contents of para 17 are based on the records. The first sentence of para 16 is based on my personal knowledge. The rest of para 1 is based on the records The contents of paras 19 is based on the record. The contents of paras 20, 21 and 22 are based on my personal knowledge. The 3. Somemtsofparas 23 and 24 wre based onthe records awed na imu ee pe ee asta sereste BARN yg TE ;