Processing .....please wait.. 
The article has been forwarded.... 
Apex court questions corporate influence on policy making
Thursday, 17 March 2011, 08:21 IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday said that policy making was gradually becoming subservient to the corporate world -- in the name of democracy and people's mandate.
Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly said, "We are gradually becoming subservient to corporate world" and "that is the benefit of privatisation. There is no rule and no holds barred. It is a real laissez faire".
The court admitted there were periodic elections but asked if this was democracy for real.
The court was hearing a petition by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy who has sought cancellation of second generation licences issued to telecom operators.
Swamy alleged that the licences were issued by short-circuiting the then prevailing policy for the issuances of licences and failure of the telecom operators in meeting their roll-out obligations.
The court asked the central government to tell it what was the origin of the "first come first served" policy in the grant of 2G telecom licence and the allocation of spectrum, and what was the rationale of this mechanism.
The apex court asked Attorney General G. Vahanvati to address its three queries.
These queries included the evolving of "first come first served" policy, the conflicting stand of telecom secretary and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on the availability of spectrum (airwave), and the reason why the TRAI was not contacted back after its recommendations on the pricing of 2G licences were ignored.
The court asked whether the "first come first served" policy was recommended by the TRAI, if not at what stage it was evolved, and what was the mechanism for it.
The court asked the attorney general to state how the Nov 19, 2007, statement of the telecom secretary that spectrum was in abundance was compatible with the repeated stand of the TRAI that it was available in scarcity.
The court wanted to know why some companies were being allowed to hold back excess spectrum when others are waiting in queue to get it.
The judges questioned what penalty was imposed on them for not using the additional spectrum for providing services.
The court also wanted the attorney general to address the question why the TRAI recommendation on the pricing of 2G licences was ignored and why it was not contacted after the suggestions were not accepted by the deparatment of telecommunications (DoT).
The court asked Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising to communicate the three queries by the court to the attorney general. Vahanvati will address these queries on Thursday.
Earlier appearing for the TRAI, senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi told the court that the decision on the grant of 2G licences in 2003 was taken on a rational basis.
The senior counsel said there were no pleadings by the petitioner by which the decisions of 2003 could be castigated.
The court went on to say that for 40-45 years it did not interfere in environmental matters but in the last 15-20 years the court had to step in in the face of environmental degradation and destruction of forests.
Appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), senior counsel Prashant Bhushan told the court that the plea for granting 2G licences in 2008 at 2001 prices in order to provide level playing field between the existing operators and new entrants was without any basis.
Source: IANS
Source: IANS
