Team Kejriwal: Government's misleading spin on 2G
Government’s misleading spin on the 2G presidential opinion shows its dishonest
intent.
The government, notably Mr. Sibal and Chidambaram have gone on an
overdrive after the Supreme Court’s opinion on the 2G presidential reference to
project the judgement as a vindication of the government’s policies and manner
in which they have been allocating spectrum, coal and other valuable natural
resources worth lakhs of crores to private companies. They are using the
innocuous part of the judgement, which says that all natural resources don’t
have to be auctioned in all circumstances, to claim vindication. They have even
used the SCs opinion to criticize the CAG.
This only shows the dishonest intent of the government. It was
nobody’s case before the Supreme Court that even natural resources like water
have to be auctioned while being allocated to people. The 2G judgment merely
said that natural resources like Spectrum (meaning scarce and valuable resource
which are given to private companies for commercial considerations) must only
be allocated by auction because apart from transparency, it ensured that the
State was able to maximize revenue for the people as a trustee of the people.
This has in fact been reiterated in the presidential opinion of the Court. In the
words of Justice D.K. Jain (on behalf of 4 judges) in para 149 of the judgment:
“Alienation of natural resources is a policy decision, and the
means adopted for the same are thus, executive prerogatives. However, when such
a policy decision is not backed by a social or welfare purpose, and precious
and scarce natural resources are alienated for commercial pursuits of profit maximizing private entrepreneurs, adoption of means other than
those that are competitive and maximize revenue may be arbitrary and face the
wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Justice Khehar in his concurring judgement has elaborated it
further by saying:
“I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid conclusion, and would
accordingly opine, that when natural resources are made available by the State
to private persons for commercial exploitation exclusively for their individual
gains, the State’s endeavour must be towards maximization of revenue
returns. This alone would ensure, that
the fundamental right enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India
(assuring equality before the law and equal protection of the laws), and the
directive principle contained in Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India
(that material resources of the community are so distributed as best to
subserve the common good), have been extended to the citizens of the country.”
Justice Khehar in his concurring judgment has further examined
what would happen if coal blocks were allocated to electricity distribution
companies without auction, even if they had bid the lowest tariffor
electricity. He says:
“If the bidding process to determine the lowest tariff has been
held, and the said bidding process has taken place without the knowledge, that a coal mining lease would
be allotted to the successful bidder, yet the successful bidder is awarded a coal
mining lease. Would such a grant be
valid? In the aforesaid fact situation,
the answer to the question posed, may well be in the negative. This is so
because, the competitive bidding for tariff was not based on the knowledge of
gains, that would come to the vying contenders, on account of grant of a coal
mining lease. Such a grant of a coal
mining lease would therefore have no nexus to the “competitive bid for
tariff”. Grant of a mining lease for
coal in this situation would therefore be a windfall, without any nexus to the
object sought to be achieved. In the
bidding process, the parties concerned had no occasion to bring down the
electricity tariff, on the basis of gains likely to accrue to them, from the
coal mining lease. In this case, a
material resource would be deemed to have been granted without a reciprocal
consideration i.e., free of cost. Such
an allotment may not be fair and may certainly be described as arbitrary, and
violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such an allotment
having no nexus to the objective of subserving the common good, would fall foul
even of the directive principle contained in Article 39(b) of the Constitution
of India.
Therefore, a forthright and legitimate policy, on account of
defective implementation, may become unacceptable in law.”
In view of this judgement which is a concurring judgment of the
court, all the allocations of coal blocks made by the government to private
companies for commercial use (even for captive consumption) without auction,
would have to be declared void. The government’s dishonest spin being sought to
be given to the judgement by its senior ministers is another clear sign of its
dishonest intent.Team Kejariwal:
No comments:
Post a Comment