No impact on 122 junked 2G licences: Ex SC Judge

Former Supreme Court Judge GS Singhvi, who headed the apex court bench which in 2012 cancelled 122 2G spectrum licences, on Friday said yesterday's judgment of the CBI Special Court would have no impact on the status of the cancelled licences. The other member of the bench, Justice AK Ganguly, refused to comment on the issue.

"How can that be? The Supreme Court passed the judgment on that issue. How can the judgment of a subordinate court impact our judgment?" he told DNA over phone.

Asked if the judgment of the Special CBI Court of OP Saini, through which all 21 accused have been acquitted of corruption and money laundering charges in the 2G Spectrum Allocation Scam case, was in conflict with his bench's 2012 judgment, the retired judge replied in the negative. After his retirement from the Supreme Court, Justice Singhvi was appointed Chairman, Competition Appellate Tribunal, a post he held till early this year.

"The issues before the two courts were different. We cancelled the allocation as we found that it had been done in a non-transparent and arbitrary manner while the CBI Court has decided the issue of criminality and conspiracy. Both are different," Justice Singhvi said.

He also pointed out the issue of whether there was a conspiracy in spectrum allocation and corruption was not decided by the SC bench.

Asked if he had read the CBI court judgment, the former Judge replied in the negative. "Not so far," he said

In February 2012, the bench headed by Justice Singhvi had, while dubbing the allocation of 2G spectrum by the Congress-led UPA government "illegal and unconstitutional", had cancelled all 122 telecom licences allotted on or after January 10, 2008 to 11 companies. DMK leader A Raja, among those acquitted by Special CBI Judge OP Saini yesterday, was Telecom Minister when the controversial allocations were made.

Cancelling the allocation, the bench had also questioned the first-come, first-served system: "In matters involving award of contracts... or permission to use public property, the principle has inherently dangerous implications."