<p>Union Home Minister P Chidambaram can heave a sigh of relief.<br /><br /></p>.<p> A special trial court in Delhi that heard the plea to prosecute him as a co-accused along with former telecom minister A Raja did not find any clinching evidence to bring him within the ambit of the 2G scam trial. The relief may be temporary as the petitioner, Subramanian Swamy, will challenge the trial court verdict in the Supreme Court.<br /><br /> The logic in the order pronounced on Saturday by special court judge O P Saini should also bring some relief to the UPA government. For, the order, like some of the observations contained in the apex court’s judgement earlier last week, almost entirely confines the blame for the 2G scam on Raja, an undertrial esconsed in Tihar jail.<br /><br />The judge gave Chidambaram the benefit. His order acknowledges that Chidambaram, as the then Union finance minister, was involved in the decision-making process regarding the award of 2G licences by Raja in 2008. He was party to the decision to retain the 2001 entry fee levels for new companies, licence fee and annual charges while awarding licences and allocating spectrum.<br /><br />Subsequently, the order acknowledges he cleared the move by two companies that won licences – Swan Telecom and Unitech – to dilute their equities in favour of foreign firms. Yet, Chidambaram escaped being bracketed with Raja because the judge found no evidence that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with Raja and others. Unlike Raja, the judge saw no evidence that Chidambaram benefited from his involvement in these decisions.<br /><br />But there is one important aspect of the order that should raise eyebrows. The judge said no public servant can be charged of criminal misconduct just because a decision taken by him or a decision taken at a meeting attended by him caused loss to the public exchequer and resulted in pecuniary advantages to third parties.<br /><br /> Much as our justice system treats a person innocent until proven guilty, there is a risk that public servants who deliberately cause loss to the exchequer will escape accountability. Last week, in its 2G judgement, the Supreme Court held that public servants are people’s trustees. And, as trustees, they are accountable for all their actions. Therefore, unlike what judge Saini would like to hold, it is doubtful there can be a presumption of innocence on the part of a public servant when his actions are patently against public interest.</p>
<p>Union Home Minister P Chidambaram can heave a sigh of relief.<br /><br /></p>.<p> A special trial court in Delhi that heard the plea to prosecute him as a co-accused along with former telecom minister A Raja did not find any clinching evidence to bring him within the ambit of the 2G scam trial. The relief may be temporary as the petitioner, Subramanian Swamy, will challenge the trial court verdict in the Supreme Court.<br /><br /> The logic in the order pronounced on Saturday by special court judge O P Saini should also bring some relief to the UPA government. For, the order, like some of the observations contained in the apex court’s judgement earlier last week, almost entirely confines the blame for the 2G scam on Raja, an undertrial esconsed in Tihar jail.<br /><br />The judge gave Chidambaram the benefit. His order acknowledges that Chidambaram, as the then Union finance minister, was involved in the decision-making process regarding the award of 2G licences by Raja in 2008. He was party to the decision to retain the 2001 entry fee levels for new companies, licence fee and annual charges while awarding licences and allocating spectrum.<br /><br />Subsequently, the order acknowledges he cleared the move by two companies that won licences – Swan Telecom and Unitech – to dilute their equities in favour of foreign firms. Yet, Chidambaram escaped being bracketed with Raja because the judge found no evidence that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with Raja and others. Unlike Raja, the judge saw no evidence that Chidambaram benefited from his involvement in these decisions.<br /><br />But there is one important aspect of the order that should raise eyebrows. The judge said no public servant can be charged of criminal misconduct just because a decision taken by him or a decision taken at a meeting attended by him caused loss to the public exchequer and resulted in pecuniary advantages to third parties.<br /><br /> Much as our justice system treats a person innocent until proven guilty, there is a risk that public servants who deliberately cause loss to the exchequer will escape accountability. Last week, in its 2G judgement, the Supreme Court held that public servants are people’s trustees. And, as trustees, they are accountable for all their actions. Therefore, unlike what judge Saini would like to hold, it is doubtful there can be a presumption of innocence on the part of a public servant when his actions are patently against public interest.</p>
