No contempt in Centre’s appointment of ASG Mehta as SPP, despite presence of court-appointed APP Grover: SC

Above: (Left) ASG Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Anand Grover

~By Vinay Vats

The government’s decision to appoint Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G scam case, despite the presence of the Supreme Court-appointed SPP, senior advocate Anand Grover, has not been considered as a deed worthy of contempt by the apex court. On Monday (March 12) the bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha dismissed the application by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation.

The bench, while appreciating the efforts of Grover, observed that since his appointment was confined to the trial court and government had issued a notification for other courts, appeals, revisional proceedings etc. it was open to the government to issue fresh notification and hence does not constitute contempt.

The government had actually reduced the role of Grover in the case and the scope of the work of the ASG was widened. Mehta was given the task of conducting the prosecution, appeals/revisions or other proceedings arising out of the cases related to 2G Spectrum investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the Court of Special Judge (2G Spectrum cases), Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.

That was when the bench had also directed the CBI, the ED etc to complete the investigation within 6 months.

Considering the importance of the matter, the court had, earlier, appointed U U Lalit as Special Prosecutor. However, following the elevation of Lalit as Judge of the Supreme Court, the court had, on September 2, 2014 ordered the nomination of Grover as counsel for the CBI and the ED. This was formalized in other orders, of November 26, 2014 and of November 27, 2014 in which Grover’s role as counsel to the agencies before the “Trial Court” was widened and he was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor. His role was to conduct prosecution, appeals/revisions or other proceedings arising out of the cases related to 2G Spectrum as well as prosecution, appeals/revisions or other proceedings out of the cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 etc. arising out of 2G Spectrum cases on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement before the Special Court of PMLA and appellate/revisional and higher Courts.

What possibly triggered the government’s decision to bring in Mehta as well, was CBI Special Judge O P Saini’s comment while acquitting all in the alleged scam. He had said that the prosecution “miserably failed” to prove the charges. It was a setback that the Centre had not been able to take lying down. The CBI had complained of poor litigation standards and the government decided to take action.

The appointment of Mehta followed. The government did this in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Irked at this insult, Grover had approached the top court asking it to relieve him of all responsibilities. Grover had clarified that he was not even informed of the Centre’s notifications. He had also claimed that the CBI had leaked to the media a letter that he had written to the agency. The CBI had demanded the final draft appeal and final opinions from him. The CBI’s action, Grover maintains, was “for motivated purposes”.

Thereafter came the contempt petition, which questioned the appointment of Mehta as SPP.

In its order regarding this, the top court’s bench also observed:

“In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that no contempt is made out since the cases are over before the trial court for which purpose, this Court had appointed Shri Anand Grover as special Public Prosecutor. It cannot be said to be a case of contempt committed by the Government while appointing Shri Tushar Mehta as Public Prosecutor vide aforesaid modified notifications. No case is made out to proceed with the contempt petition and the same is hereby dismissed.”

The Special Leave Petition was filed against the order of dismissal passed by the Delhi High Court in writ petition filed by the NGO before Delhi High Court for ordering an investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team into what was termed as ‘2G Spectrum Scam’ for unearthing the role of A Raja, the then Union Minister, Department of Telecommunications, senior officers of the department, middlemen, businessmen and others.

Earlier CBI had submitted in the Supreme Court that during a raid, a confidential report was recovered from former finance minister P Chidambaram’s home which was prepared by CBI on Aircel-Maxis probe. They claimed that there are many irregularities in clearances given to Aircel-Maxis. The approvals were given to Aircel-Maxis during the tenure of Chidambaram were beyond legal mandates.