NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday admitted a Review Petition filed by the government on its 2G verdict and issued notices to the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an NGO, and Subramanian Swamy, president of the Janata Party. A Bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and Justice K S Radhakrishnan issued notices in this regard after hearing the submissions of Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, senior counsel Harish Salve appearing for Videocon and Mukul Rohtagi appearing for Loop Telecom and Unitech.
The government is seeking a review of the 2G ruling averring that natural resources should be allotted to private companies only through auction.
Indira Jaising told the Bench that the government is seeking a review of its judgment on the limited aspect related to the ruling that all the natural resources should be allotted through the auction process. “We do not want to question the order on the cancellation of the licences. What is of concern for us is the question of law. Some of the questions require revisiting,” Indira Jaising pleaded.
The apex court had, in its February 2 verdict, said that the first-come-first-serve policy was flawed.
It was on the petitions filed by the CPIL and Swamy that the apex court had passed the judgment cancelling the 122-odd licences which were granted 2G spectrum during the tenure of former Telecom Minister A Raja.
The Bench heard the case in an open court, which is a rare thing, and made it clear that the issuance of notices in the matter did not mean a stay on its verdict.
The counsel for telecom firms tried in vain to impress upon the Bench that they also should be heard. They said that they should also be afforded an opportunity to put across their grievances as they are adversely affected by the cancellation of licences.
The Bench said a clear no to this as it had already dismissed their Review Petitions earlier.
The government had said the February 2 judgment cancelling the 2G licences “is liable to be reviewed since there are errors which are apparent on the face of the record” and there are other reasons for reviewing the verdict. The petition said there was error in the judgment that the State is duty bound to follow the auction procedure in all cases, as no reasonable authority could hold that in all cases, natural resources must go to the highest bidder.