Active Stocks
Thu Mar 28 2024 15:59:33
  1. Tata Steel share price
  2. 155.90 2.00%
  1. ICICI Bank share price
  2. 1,095.75 1.08%
  1. HDFC Bank share price
  2. 1,448.20 0.52%
  1. ITC share price
  2. 428.55 0.13%
  1. Power Grid Corporation Of India share price
  2. 277.05 2.21%
Business News/ Politics / Policy/  SC rejects Maran’s plea to restrain CBI in Aircel-Maxis case
BackBack

SC rejects Maran’s plea to restrain CBI in Aircel-Maxis case

The former telecom minister had contended that CBI hasn't completed investigations against him, and thus cannot file a chargesheet at this stage

Dayanidhi Maran had contended that the probe agency hasn’t completed investigations against him, and thus cannot file a chargesheet at this stage. Photo: MintPremium
Dayanidhi Maran had contended that the probe agency hasn’t completed investigations against him, and thus cannot file a chargesheet at this stage. Photo: Mint

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran’s plea to restrain the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from filing a chargesheet against him for his alleged involvement in the controversial Aircel-Maxis deal.

Maran had contended that the probe agency hasn’t completed investigations against him, and thus cannot file a chargesheet at this stage. He further alleged the chargesheet was politically motivated.

A three-judge bench of H.L. Dattu, S.A. Bobde and A.M. Sapre said the writ petition “was in the nature of a suit for injunction", and it would not be appropriate at this stage to stay the filing of a chargesheet. “(You) cannot ask us to give a negative prayer," said Dattu, especially for filing a chargesheet.

Maran’s lawyer C.A. Sundaram stated that filing of a chargesheet against Maran would affect his reputation, especially in light of a five-judge bench’s 27 August decision .

“There can be no dispute over the proposition that unless a person is convicted, he is presumed to be innocent but the presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence is something altogether different, and not to be considered for being chosen as a Minister to the Council of Ministers because framing of charge in a criminal case is totally another thing...Framing of charge is a judicial act by an experienced judicial mind," states the judgement, signifying the relevance of such a finding by the court.

The court, however, told Sundaram that in case the chargesheet was found defective, he could approach the court for relief. As a consequence, Sundaram requested to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who represents the non-governmental organization Centre for Public Interest Litigation, a petitioner in the 2G spectrum scam case, called Maran’s plea a “frivolous petition". “This was a frivolous petition based on the CBI chief’s dishonest attempt to save Maran and prevent the chargesheet being filed based on the fact that some information from Malaysia hadn’t been received."

The Aircel-Maxis case refers to allegations of irregularities by Maran when he was communications minister between 2004 and 2007. Maran is accused of stalling necessary approvals needed by telecom services provider Aircel, and forcing C. Sivasankaran, then owner of the telecom firm, to sell his company to Malaysia-based Maxis Communications, which is owned by T. Ananda Krishnan. In return, Krishnan’s group company invested around 650 crore in the Sun TV Group, owned by Maran’s brother Kalanithi. Once Sivasankaran sold his stake, Aircel almost immediately got all necessary approvals from the government.

Sundaram stated that filing of a chargesheet against Maran would affect his reputation. He claimed that the allegations against him were not in relation to the 2G spectrum allocation scam. The 2G spectrum allocation scam refers to alleged misuse of power by communications minister A. Raja that led to the allocation of telecom spectrum and licences in January 2008 to various companies, that resulted in a notional loss of as much as 1.76 trillion to the exchequer.

Maran’s plea comes in the wake of several opinions including that of attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, that a chargesheet should be filed against him because he was of the opinion that CBI had sufficient evidence to do so. The court noted Rohatgi’s opinion during the hearing.

PTI contributed to this story.

Note: The story has been updated to correct the name of the company in the headline

Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!

Catch all the Politics News and Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
More Less
Published: 28 Aug 2014, 04:56 PM IST
Next Story footLogo
Recommended For You
Switch to the Mint app for fast and personalized news - Get App