6.1 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2G spectrum case | 6/9 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2G_spectrum_case | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T14:10:45.635270+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== 2012 === 2 February: The Supreme Court cancels the 122 licenses issued by Raja and imposes a ₹50 million ($1,018,122) fine on Unitech, Swan and Tata Teleservices and a ₹5 million fine on Loop Telecom Pvt Ltd, S-Tel, Allianz Infratech and Sistema Shyam Tele Services. The SC requested a trial-court ruling about whether Home Minister P Chidambaram should be charged. 4 February: The special court, under justice O.P Saini, dismisses Swamy's request to charge Chidambaram. 8 February: The Enforcement Directorate and the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation charge DMK leader Dayanidhi Maran with money laundering and his brother, Kalanithi Maran, for allegedly receiving about ₹ 5.5 billion illegally in the Aircel-Maxis deal. 9 February: Essar Group and Loop Telecom appeal their special-court subpoenas to the Supreme Court. 15 February: The Supreme Court refuses an interim stay on the 22 February summonses of Essar Group, Loop Telecom and their officials by the special court. 22 February: The CBI files a complaint with the CVC about witness-tampering by the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, allegedly at the behest of DMK Minister of State for Finance SS Palanimanickam. Swamy said he would notify the Supreme Court. 23 February: Swamy petitions the Supreme Court to overturn the trial-court dismissal of his request to charge Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram. 2 March: The government of India files a review petition in Supreme Court of the court's 2 February order cancelling the 122 licenses, questioning the court's authority to supersede the first-come, first-served policy but not challenging the validity of the cancellations. Raja and Sistema (majority shareholder in MTS India, Uninor and other telecom companies) also file a SC review petition. 4 April: Except for the government of India's partial review petition, the Supreme Court dismisses all 10 review petitions. Companies dismissed include Videocon Telecommunications, S Tel, Sistema Shyam Teleservices, Tata Teleservices, Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu), Etisalat DB Telecom and Idea Cellular. 12 April: The government requests an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on issues arising from its 2 February ruling. 9 May: The Supreme Court grants bail to Siddharth Behura; and upheld RK Chandolia's bail. Raja requests bail. 15 May: Bail granted to Raja after 15 months, on condition that he have court permission to visit Tamil Nadu. 6 June: The special court allows Raja to visit Tamil Nadu. 3 July: Briefing the joint parliamentary committee probing the case, the Enforcement Directorate said it has enough evidence to convict DMK chief Karunanidhi's wife and daughter, Kanimozhi. 31 July: Former DoT senior official A. K. Srivastava confirmed the CBI's allegation in his testimony, and Raja (as telecom minister) was the final authority on policy matters. In an earlier statement to CBI, he said that Raja had recorded the cut—off date of 1 October 2007 in a DoT file. 1 August: The Supreme Court, in its advisory opinion on the 2G judgment, says that the implementation of the first-come, first-served policy was flawed. According to the Chief Justice, "The moment you change the criterion and distort the policy, it ceases to be FCFS policy. If you insist on making payment at the last minute after changing the cut-off date, then it is not FCFS, it is an out-of-turn policy." 3 August: In accordance with a Supreme Court directive, the government of India revises the spectrum value to ₹140 billion (US$1.5 billion); this discredits the zero-loss theory and illustrates the ₹1,760 billion (US$19 billion) revenue loss calculated by the CAG. 9 August: The government again requests an extension from the Supreme Court (this time to 12 November) of the deadline to begin auctioning spectrum licences. After cancelling 122 licences in February, the court had given it four months to re-auction them (which had been extended to 31 August). 11 November: After one year of trial, 77 of 154 witnesses have been deposed.
=== 2013 === 20 April: Communist Party of India senior MP Gurudas Dasgupta accuses Manmohan Singh of "dereliction of duty", alleging that the PM was aware of irregularities in the allocation of telecom licences. According to Dasgupta, in a November 2007 letter Kamal Nath advised the Prime Minister to establish a group of ministers to allocate spectrum. He also referred to a note from the Cabinet Secretary recommending that the assessed value of spectrum licences be increased. 23 April: In a 112-page written statement to the joint parliamentary committee, Raja said that he met with P. Chidambaram and Prime Minister Singh several times from November 2007 to July 2008 to inform them of all 2G-related decisions and Singh agreed with him.
=== 2017 === 21 December: A special CBI court acquits everyone accused in the 2G spectrum case stating that the prosecution has failed to prove any charge against any of the accused, made in its well choreographed charge sheet.
=== 2018 === 19 and 20 March 2018: The Enforcement Directorate and CBI respectively file appeals against trial court verdict in the Delhi High Court.
=== 2019 === Feb 2019: Justice Najmi Waziri ordered the defendants to plant 3,000 trees each for seeking more time to file their responses on the appeal challenging their acquittal in the case.
=== 2020 === 5 October 2020: The Delhi High Court begins day-to-day hearings on the appeals, which later gets postponed to 14 January 2021. 23 November 2020: Justice Brijesh Sethi of Delhi High Court passed an order to release the appeals before him as "part-heard" to another judge as he was due to retire on 30 November 2020. The judge mentioned with heavy heart that his limited time was consumed in hearing and disposal of miscellaneous applications and petitions which were filed one after another on behalf of the respondents and hence he could not hear and decide the CBI and EDs appeals. All the petitions of the respondents (to the CBI and ED's petitions) were dismissed.