New Delhi: Union Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal today described as ‘malicious and motivated by vested interests’ the public interest litigation filed against him for alleged financial relief given to Reliance Infocomm.
Under fire following the PIL filed in the Supreme Court yesterday demanding a probe into the financial relief given to Reliance Infocomm in connection with the 2G spectrum scam, Mr Sibal, addressing a press conference here, said the litigation was malicious and motivated by vested interests.
Questioning the PIL, Mr Sibal said it had nothing to do with the 2G spectrum case.
He demanded to know why it was filed under the 2G scam.
Expressing grief over the developments, the Minister said, “PILs cannot be used for settling personal scores.” The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CIPL), a non-governmental organisation, yesterday filed an application alleging that the Minister for Telecommunications had favoured the ADAG owned by Reliance Group Chairman Anil Ambani by waiving a whopping Rs 650 crore penalty for the grant of 2G licences.
The CIPL also alleged that Attorney-General Goolam Vahanvati has exceeded his brief by disregarding and overruling the Union Law Ministry.
The petition alleged that Mr Vahanvati rendered professional advice to the then Telecom Minister A Raja disregarding the cardinal principle that a senior law officer of the government should give advice or opinion only through the proper channel, which is the Law Ministry.
“Not only that, no Minister can also directly approach a law officer and seek opinion on any subject. Both these tenets were given a convenient go-by and Mr Vahanvati continued to give legal opinion,” the NGO said.
The applicant said Mr Sibal had abused his position as a Minister to overrule the unanimous view of senior telecom officials, including that of Telecom Secretary R Chandrashekhar, to waive the huge penalty by reducing it to Rs five crore.
“This abuse of position to benefit Anil Ambani’s company also needs a thorough investigation by the CBI,” the NGO said.
The PIl said the roles of both Mr Sibal and Mr Vahanvati needed to be thoroughly probed.