‘Why was Manmohan silent for 16 months?'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the “alleged inaction and silence” on the part of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for 16 months in taking a decision on a private complaint seeking sanction for prosecution of A. Raja, who has since resigned as Telecom Minister, in the 2G spectrum scam.

“The Prime Minister could have said that the material on record was insufficient and declined sanction but he could not have sat over the complaint for 16 months,” observed Justice A.K. Ganguly, who was on a two-judge Bench presided over by Justice G.S. Singhvi.

The Bench was hearing a special leave petition filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy for a direction to the Prime Minister to grant sanction for prosecution of Mr. Raja. It asked Solicitor-General (SG) Gopal Subramaniam, representing the Prime Minister, to go through records and inform the court on Thursday what action was taken on Dr. Swamy's complaint.

Dr. Swamy, citing the judgment in the Vineet Narain case, said the sanctioning authority (SA) should decide one way or the other within three months and must act independently on the material placed on record. However, since Mr. Raja had now resigned, no sanction was required for his prosecution, Dr. Swamy said, adding he must be permitted to file the private complaint in the competent court.

The SG said it was open to the SA to look into other material before arriving at a decision. He said the three-month period mentioned in the Vineet Narain case pertained to cases where investigation had been completed. It was open to the SA to await the result of the probe for a proper decision.

Justice Ganguly told the SG: “The three months' time for grant of sanction laid down by the Supreme Court is for the purpose of fair and good governance. The judgment says the SA will not be influenced by extraneous materials. We find it is now more than 16 months. The SA can say I am not inclined to give sanction. But we find alleged inaction and silence for 16 months.”

Justice Ganguly referred to the Prime Minister's reply sent to Dr. Swamy on March 19, 2010 that he wanted to wait for further material or await CBI investigation, and said “for the PM saying it is premature [to decide on sanction] is what is troubling us.”

Justice Ganguly said: “The SA can say ‘yes' or ‘no', but to say premature means the complainant has not got that right yet. You look at the language of the letter and the tenor of the reply. Communication coming from a constitutional authority like the Prime Minister has to be carefully used.”

U.S. food insecurity at record levels

Food insecurity, for decades the bane of developing countries, has, post-recession, assumed worrisome proportions in the world's most powerful nation — the United States.

In a scathing report — Household Food Security in the U.S., 2009 — the U.S. Department of Agriculture revealed that 14.7 per cent of American households faced food insecurity some time during 2009, including 5.7 per cent with very low food security.

The report further said in households with “severe range of food insecurity”, food intake of its members dropped and eating patterns “were disrupted at times during the year”.

While the latest figures for food insecurity and very low food security showed only a slight increase from their 2008 levels of 14.6 per cent and 5.7 per cent respectively, they, nonetheless, hover at the highest recorded levels since 1995, when the first national food security survey was conducted.

Highlighting the significant inequalities in food resource availability across U.S. households, the USDA report noted that the typical food-secure household spent a whopping 33 per cent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition.

Also, indicating a racial divide in food security, the report found the rates of food insecurity among African-American and Hispanic households were substantially higher than the national average. Further, such insecurity was higher among households with incomes near or below the federal poverty line and among households with children headed by single parents, the report said. The USDA report was based on data from an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to its monthly Current Population Survey.

The USDA said the 2009 food security survey covered about 46,000 households and it asked one adult respondent in each household a series of questions about experiences and behaviours that indicate food insecurity, such as being unable, at times, to afford balanced meals, cutting the size of meals because of too little money for food, or being hungry because of too little money for food.

The food security status of the household was assigned based on the number of food-insecure conditions reported.

Two dates that former telecom minister, Raja will rue

Hindu Business Line

Thomas K. Thomas

New Delhi, Nov. 15

The 2G spectrum scam has been on the boil for the past three years but September 25, 2007 and January 10, 2008 are probably the two days that exposed the former Communications and IT Minister, Mr A. Raja, to public scrutiny.

When the Communications and IT Ministry announced in mid-2007 that it had decided to bring in more number of mobile players in a bid to drive down tariffs and increase competition, everyone was ecstatic. Seeing the huge response from companies, the Department of Telecom on September 25 set October 1 as the cut-off date for receiving applications. In that one week, the DoT received 408 more applications taking the total to 575 from as many as 46 companies.

But just a month later, in November, the DoT issued another notice suddenly advancing the cut-off date to September 25. As a result of this one move, 408 applications, from the likes of AT&T, Hindujas, Sterlite and Moser Baer, got automatically disqualified leaving the field open to relatively unknown entities including Swan Telecom, Datacom and Loop Mobile.

Around the same time the Ministry of Finance repeatedly told the Telecom Ministry to consider auctioning the spectrum since there are so many interested applicants. According to a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr Raja ignored these suggestions and moved ahead to issue licences to only a few players at a throwaway price.

On January 10, 2008, the Ministry put out a press release at 2-45 p.m. that Letters of Intent (LoI) will be issued between 3-30 p.m. and 4-30 p.m. to companies that pay the entry fee first.

It resulted in total pandemonium at the Sanchar Bhawan here, the office of the DoT, as representatives of wannabe telecom companies literally got into fist fights and blows in a bid to be the first to get the letter of intent. What followed could make Bollywood stunts pale in comparison as some of the company representatives were physically thrown out of the line by rival applicant company.

The CAG report indicates that some of the applicants got advance information of the DoT action. “Some applicants were even ready with demand drafts drawn on dates prior to the notification of cut-off date and some had even managed securing bank guarantees. Evidently, these applicants, had advance information about the issue of this notification by the DoT which enabled them to take appropriate advance action in spite of the changed time limit for compliance from 15 days to about half a day,” says the CAG report. Even though Mr Raja maintains that he stuck to the first-come, first-served (FCFS) policy, the decision to award licence based on the time of paying fees on January 10, 2008 took away the relevance of the date of application and the sanctity of the declared FCFS policy

chupke chupke raat din- ghulam ali