<p>The agency that has agreed to a court-monitored probe into the scam on December 15, last year, also questioned the apex court’s jurisdiction to issue any direction to it to probe a particular person.<br /><br /> Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy had filed an application seeking direction to probe the role of Chidambaram, then finance minister, in agreeing on the prices fixed by A Raja in 2008.<br /><br />Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the agency, maintained that once the chargesheet in the case was filed, the matter should be left to the trial court.<br />“This is wholly outside the jurisdiction of the court. 2G case is no more open to investigation. So far Raja’s conspiracy with others is concerned, the probe is over and chargesheet has been filed,” he told the Supreme Court Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly.<br /><br />Questioning the maintainability of Swamy’s plea, counsel said that the CBI is a statutory investigating body and no court could direct it as to who is to be made an accused in the case.<br /><br />To Vengugopal’s arguments, the bench, however, said: “The jurisdiction of this court is beyond question. Having regard to the principle of judicial review, the power to give direction is not questionable. He (Swamy) is seeking direction for investigation of a particular angle where a gentleman (Chidambaram) may be involved.” <br /><br />It also maintained that there was nothing which can prevent him from arguing his case.<br />Venugopal, however, insisted the matter be left to the trial court as it could summon a person as accused if anything came up before it during the trial.<br /><br />In his plea, Swamy had mentioned the dates when Raja and Chidambaram had bilateral meetings three times and once with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 4, 2008, when the spectrum prices were fixed.<br /><br />“Chidambaram was not a passive partner in price fixation but was actively involved along with Raja. The CBI is determined to give a clean chit to Chidambaram,” he alleged.<br />In the beginning, senior advocate P P Rao, appearing for the Centre, submitted a news report before the court to point out that Swamy had made a similar plea to make Chidambaram an accused in the case before a trial court.<br /><br />Swamy, however, maintained that his applications before the trial court and the Supreme Court were different and there was no clash between them.<br />The court is to resume the hearing in the matter on Wednesday.<br /></p>
<p>The agency that has agreed to a court-monitored probe into the scam on December 15, last year, also questioned the apex court’s jurisdiction to issue any direction to it to probe a particular person.<br /><br /> Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy had filed an application seeking direction to probe the role of Chidambaram, then finance minister, in agreeing on the prices fixed by A Raja in 2008.<br /><br />Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the agency, maintained that once the chargesheet in the case was filed, the matter should be left to the trial court.<br />“This is wholly outside the jurisdiction of the court. 2G case is no more open to investigation. So far Raja’s conspiracy with others is concerned, the probe is over and chargesheet has been filed,” he told the Supreme Court Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly.<br /><br />Questioning the maintainability of Swamy’s plea, counsel said that the CBI is a statutory investigating body and no court could direct it as to who is to be made an accused in the case.<br /><br />To Vengugopal’s arguments, the bench, however, said: “The jurisdiction of this court is beyond question. Having regard to the principle of judicial review, the power to give direction is not questionable. He (Swamy) is seeking direction for investigation of a particular angle where a gentleman (Chidambaram) may be involved.” <br /><br />It also maintained that there was nothing which can prevent him from arguing his case.<br />Venugopal, however, insisted the matter be left to the trial court as it could summon a person as accused if anything came up before it during the trial.<br /><br />In his plea, Swamy had mentioned the dates when Raja and Chidambaram had bilateral meetings three times and once with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 4, 2008, when the spectrum prices were fixed.<br /><br />“Chidambaram was not a passive partner in price fixation but was actively involved along with Raja. The CBI is determined to give a clean chit to Chidambaram,” he alleged.<br />In the beginning, senior advocate P P Rao, appearing for the Centre, submitted a news report before the court to point out that Swamy had made a similar plea to make Chidambaram an accused in the case before a trial court.<br /><br />Swamy, however, maintained that his applications before the trial court and the Supreme Court were different and there was no clash between them.<br />The court is to resume the hearing in the matter on Wednesday.<br /></p>
