Justice Ganguly refuses to take blame in 2G verdicts

Justice Ganguly refuses to take blame in 2G verdicts

Justice A K Ganguly, who was part of a Supreme Court bench that delivered landmark judgements on 2G cases, refused to take the onus for the delay saying they were reserved by Justice G S Singhvi who had to take the call as a senior judge of the bench.

However, Ganguly, who demitted office after delivering the judgements on the grant of sanction for prosecution of former telecom minister A Raja and cancellation of 122 licences, said the delay was "not intentional" as judges worked under "tremendous pressure".

The judgements were pronounced after being reserved for more than a year and for 11 months respectively.

"Now these two judgements were heard by a bench of Justice Singhvi and myself. But both the judgements were reserved by my learned senior colleague Justice Singhvi.

"I can tell you if the judgements had been reserved by me it would have been delivered long ago," Justice Ganguly said in CNN-IBN programme Devil's Advocate with Karan Thapar.

When asked whether he was determined to deliver the verdict before his retirement on February 2, Justice Ganguly said, "Yes, otherwise there would have been a huge loss of time.

"Because these cases can't be dismissed off the cuff. These cases were heard. At least more than 30 hearing days were devoted. So judicial time is so precious, I would have felt very sad and people would have criticised if these judgements were not delivered," he said.
He said suspicion on the delay and timing of the verdicts was "absolutely" unwarranted.

"Safari users with the browser set to block third-party cookies thought they were not being tracked," John Simpson, privacy project director of Consumer Watchdog, said in the letter.

"Nonetheless, because of an element invisible to the user, but designed to mimic a form, DoubleClick was able to set tracking cookies in an obvious violation of the set preference."

Google has started removing the cookies from Safari browsers, Rachel Whetstone, senior vice president of communications and public policy at the California-based company, said in an e-mailed statement.

"It's important to stress that, just as on other browsers, these advertising cookies do not collect personal information," she said.

Google said it began to use the functions in the Safari browser last year to enable its "+1" feature, which lets surfers easily identify content that interests them.

Google created a temporary communication link between its servers and Safari's, so the company could know whether a user had signed up for +1, Whetstone said.

"But we designed this so that the information passing between the user's Safari browser and Google's servers was anonymous — effectively creating a barrier between their personal information and the Web content they browse," she said.

"However, the Safari browser contained functionality that then enabled other Google advertising cookies to be set on the browser. We didn't anticipate that this would happen."

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reported that a Safari user in Illinois has filed the first class-action lawsuit against Google for its role in the Safari mix-up, alleging that Google's "willful and knowing actions" violated federal wiretapping laws, among other statutes.

"I don't think so (that Raja was not defended). There is a trial going on where he has all the opportunity to prove his innocence. Here we were considering the matter on a question of executive decision.

"The decision of the minister concerned was defended by the government so it's nothing personal. It was a decision of the government and he happened to be the minister and therefore he was defended. The ministry was defended and he acted as a minister," he said.

"It was open to him to defend himself (before the apex court). He had that option and the court had never shut out anybody," he added. He also rejected the suggestion that the 2G verdict had prejudiced Raja's case before the trial court.

"The court is a court. We have made it clear that these findings are for the purpose of official business. The criminal case is slightly different. It goes on a different perspective. There he is entitled to take his defence.

"There is nothing what is called as junior or senior judge. He (trial court judge) is doing his duty. Every judge is independent and we have made it clear that it (apex court verdict on 2G) is not to effect it (the trial). That is how judiciary functions," he said.

He said "the trial is an independent trial and after the trial he has all the opportunities of going to the higher courts".

On a question relating to legality of licences awarded between 2001 and 2007 he said that It was not challenged before the court.

"Every judgement has a territory. Things that were before the court were considered. Things that were not before the court were not considered," he said.

On a suggestion that the 2G judgement has created a doubt in the minds of foreign investors, Justice Ganguly said that everybody entering into a contract in India has to follow the law of the land.

"This is not the first that a contract is quashed, There is nothing new. There are many many aspects of a contract. It has happened in the past it may happen in future.

"Every contracts has certain parameters, legal parameters. Whenever anybody comes to enter into a contract in this country, the law of the land has to be obeyed," he said. To a question on the principle of collective cabinet responsibility, he said Raja had not followed the principle and had acted on his own so only he is to be blamed.