Comments
The NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the Government’s Presidential Reference, on issues emerging from the apex court’s landmark 2G spectrum case ruling, was not maintainable.
The CPIL alleged that “under the garb of the Presidential Reference” the Government was trying to ensure that the 2G judgement is overruled. It asked the apex court to therefore decline to answer the questions raised in the Reference.
On February 2, the apex court had passed its order on the petition filed by the CPIL and the Janata Party President Dr Subramanian Swamy, cancelling 122 2G licences after finding illegalities in their distribution. The court had mandated distribution of all natural resources through auction.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice, Mr S. H. Kapadia, on Tuesday began hearing on issues including whether it is mandatory for the Government to only auction all natural resources, including 2G spectrum, or choose any other option for their distribution.
‘CONSTITUTIONAL SHORT-CUT’
Senior advocate and former Solicitor-General, Mr Soli J. Sorabjee, representing CPIL, said: “The Supreme Court’s ‘Reference jurisdiction’ cannot be invoked to seek its opinion about the correctness of a judgment of the apex court, against which a review petition was filed but was subsequently withdrawn and which has attained finality.”
He said if a judgment of the apex court is believed to be incorrect, it is open to a party to persuade another bench before which the judgment is relied upon to refer the judgment to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Pointing out that in no Presidential Reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution so far have answers been sought to questions that have been authoritatively answered by the Supreme Court, he said, therefore, “Such a reference (by the Government) would be plainly ultra vires Article 143 and is not maintainable.”
Mr Sorabjee said Constitutional short-cuts are not permissible, adding that, entertaining the present Reference would set an unhealthy precedent and will be clearly contrary to the earlier apex court judgments.
GOVT’S PLEA
The Attorney-General, Mr G. E. Vahanvati, representing the Centre, claimed that if the doctrine of public trust is extended to all natural resources, it could lead to unworkable consequences. The Centre also defended its FCFS policy saying the same has been in use in different countries to distribute natural resources.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.