CASE STUDIES : INTERLINKING AND HYPERLINKING

I. SMT. SELVI V STATE OF KARNATAKA

Abstract
The case is seen as a case of utmost importance in the history of Indian judiciary. India
in 2010 had seen an infallible fight between humanity and technology. Technology has
absolutely outpaced the developments in law and human mankind. Narco Analysis is
one such scientific advancement that has become progressively, perhaps alarmingly,
common term in India. Some constitutional questions that encompass the era of
technology are crucial to answer. are the methods adopted by the investigative
authorities are ultra vires to the fundamental’s rights of an individual, Whether the
techniques are a boon or a bane for the accused, whether human rights are at stake
because of such practices. The authors have certainly put forward the relevant
information from the landmark judgment and have critically analyzed the points that
were put forward.
Introduction
We live in a world which is ever growing and with the change in time, the need of
people also changes and hence growth becomes an unavoidable factor. One of the
most important and significant development is the growth in technological
advancements. Now since every coin has two sides, technological advancements too
have its pros and cons. One such advancement in the technology that we are here
concerned about is the use of scientific techniques such as Narcoanalysis (NARCO),
polygraph examination (PE) and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test.
These days the impugned techniques are being used in various fields for various
purposes. We here are concerned with the use of these techniques in the criminal
justice system. The impugned techniques help the investigating authorities to get
relevant information from the accused. But now the word consent comes into the
picture. The accused are involuntarily administered to these tests and hence a whole
lot of question regarding the violation of human rights and fundamental rights arises.
The landmark judgment of Smt. Selvi and Ors v. state of Karnataka,[ii] raises the
important legal issues with respect to the involuntary administration of the impugned
techniques and also makes a clear stand so as to what all should be done and taken
care of while using these techniques. The author has tried to critically analyze the
judgment by assuming the following hypothesis:
Background of the case
Smt. Selvi and Ors v. State of Karnataka,[iii] is a criminal appeal in the supreme court of
India bearing Criminal Appeal No 1267 of 2004. The case talks about the legal
questions related to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques,
namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile
(BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases.[iv] The
case gives emphasis on major legal issues including privacy or personal liberty, self-
incrimination and substantive due process.
The main legal issues that were raised in the court regarding this appeal were
Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the ‘right
against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution?
Whether the investigative use of the impugned techniques creates a likelihood of
incrimination for the subject?
Whether the results derived from the impugned techniques amount to ‘testimonial
compulsion’ thereby attracting the bar of Article 20(3)?
Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is a reasonable
restriction on ‘personal liberty’ as understood in the context of Article 21 of the
Constitution?[v]
Judgement
A three-judge bench including the then chief justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, J. RV
Raveendran and J. JM Panchal held that involuntary administration of the impugned
techniques violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’
“This Court has recognized that the protective scope of Article 20(3) extends to the
investigative stage in criminal cases and when read with Section 161(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 it protects accused persons, suspects as well as witnesses
who are examined during an investigation. The test results cannot be admitted in
evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion. Article 20(3)
protects an individual’s choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of
whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory.”[vi]
Also, the court held that it violates the basic human right of an individual as the
forcible administration of these techniques amounts to cruelty and is an intrusion of
mental privacy. The bench ruled that involuntary administration of the impugned
techniques violates the standard of substantive due process as given under article
21(3).[vii]
“we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in
question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing
so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do
leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context
of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the
subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves
cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious
control over the responses during the administration of the test”[viii]
The court also highlighted the guidelines that are laid down by the National Human
Rights Commission for the administration of the polygraph test on the accused. The
court held that these guidelines should be strictly adhered to for all kinds of such
techniques.
Critical analysis
Smt. Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka is a landmark judgment in the history of Indian
judiciary, the judgment starts with detail description of narcoanalysis, polygraph test
and BEAP test including the scientific, legal, ethical and moral aspects also. Then a
number of cases have been discussed and cited the majority of which were foreign as
the issue is new to our country and relevant citations were not available. The three
basic contentions that have been raised in the judgment are-
The involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates article 20(3) of the
Indian Constitution.
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.”[ix]
Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution talks about the right against self-incrimination.
It says that the accused cannot be forced to be a victim against himself, now when we
talk about the administration of scientific techniques like NARCO, BEAP etc. on the
accused in order to carry forward the investigation process by recording the testimony
regarding the case, we mean that the person would be under the influence of certain
chemicals because of which he is supposed to answer the relevant details and would
not be able to lie. This can be considered good to fasten the investigation process as it
would save time and energy of the investigating authorities which is being wasted in
extracting true information from the accused. But considering the fact that there is no
consent involved in this procedure, we can deduce that the accused is being forced
and compelled to give testimony against himself.
The basic rationale behind right against self-incrimination is to maintain the integrity of
the judicial process, to forbid false testimony and to achieve a fair trial. And forcing
administration of such techniques on the accused would not solve the purpose
whereas it would raise questions of integrity on our trails. It is being repeatedly argued
that the statements made by the victims during the test are not used against
themselves but the statements are used to carry forward the investigation. The bench
is of the following opinion on this-
“The test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through
the use of compulsion. Article 20(3) protects an individual’s choice between speaking
and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be
inculpatory or exculpatory. Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible ‘conveyance of
personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue’. The results obtained from
each of the impugned tests bear a ‘testimonial’ character and they cannot be
categorized as material evidence.”[x]
A number of provisions from CRPC including sec 161(2) talk about an accused’s right to
remain silent and that he/she should not be forced to give any testimony which might
result into penal provisions against himself.
“The protective scope of Article 20(3) read with Section 161(2), CrPC guards against
the compulsory extraction of oral testimony, even at the stage of an investigation.”[xi]
The involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the right to
privacy and personal liberty as given under article 21 of the Indian.
“Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”[xii]
The concept of privacy is still new to India and it has only found its place under article
21 of the constitution and to understand the scope of privacy and on what grounds its
violations can take place we need to understand that whether the involuntary
administration of any of these tests is compatible with the constitutional guarantee of
substantive due process.[xiii]
“In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected
to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of an investigation in
criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into
personal liberty Forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques
violates the standard of ‘substantive due process’ which is required for restraining
personal liberty.”[xiv]
The impugned tests put a restraint on personal liberty in a number of ways. Firstly, by
confining a person against his will at the time of conducting the test. Secondly, it
infringes a person’s mental privacy by subjecting him to a drug which induces him to
make revelations. This brings us to one another aspect of privacy i.e. when we talk
about personal liberty we are not always concerned with physical barriers. Privacy also
includes mental privacy, the right to choose, a person’s right to remain silent and to
choose what to speak and forcing a person to confess something under the
administration of certain drugs. Through this, we can create an interrelation between
article 20(3) and article 21 of the Indian Constitution i.e. right against self-incrimination
should be read as a part of the right to personal liberty.

“An individual’s decision to make a statement is the product of a private choice and
there should be no scope for any other individual to interfere with such autonomy,
especially in circumstances where the person faces exposure to criminal charges or
penalties.”[xv]
Therefore, taking into account all the necessary and relevant contentions the author is
of the view that the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates a
person’s right to personal liberty and right against self-incrimination.
The involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is against basic human
rights.
The author is of the opinion that the judges are nowhere wrong in highlighting the
strict need to follow the guidelines laid by the National Human Rights Commission for
administration of such tests as it has been proved in various studies that the pain a
person goes through during these tests is equivalent to the third degree torture given
to the criminals.
“Judgments such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,[xvi] have stressed upon the
importance of preventing the ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of any person
who is taken into custody.”[xvii]
The landmark judgment holds its validity for ages to come. The author agrees and
appreciates each and every point that has been raised in the case. The author would
like to highlight the way by which a detail answer to every legal question has been
given. The bench has covered all aspects including both positive and negative sides of
the situation. We all are aware that an accused is innocent unless proven guilty and
subjecting an accused to such treatments would, therefore is injustice on his part. The
author strongly agrees with the decision taken by the bench and believes that
humanity and constitutional morality should be kept above all.
CONCLUSION
A decision no matter how well made is always subject to criticism just because there is
always scope of improvement.  The same applies to the judgement of Selvi v. State of
Karnataka. Although it is one of the most trendsetting and landmark judgement of its
time but still when there is constitutionality and democracy criticism is ought to come
up.  Moreover when it comes to judicial decision there is always this scope open for
critics to pool in their views. But compared to others this is one of those few
judgments where the critics might find it difficult to find a lacunae. The judgement is
perfect example of just and neutral decision.
This limited exception for admitting into evidence is due to the principle that “fruits of
the poisonous tree” casts a shadow on the Court’s otherwise progressive judgment.
This same principle has been applied to this present case with just reasons.
II. ANVAR P. K. VS. P.K BASHEER & ORS.
Recently, in the case of Anvar P. K. vs. P.K Basheer & ors. (dated 18 September, 2014),
Supreme Court overruled the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence
pertaining to electronic record, as held by the court in case of State (NCT of Delhi) v
Navjot Sandhu alias Afsal Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 .
Supreme court in case of Anvar P.K vs. P.K Basheer & ors.,  further explained the
position by saying that “an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be
admitted in evidence unless the requirement under section 65 B are satisfied. Thus in
case of CD, VCD and chip etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in term
of section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which the
secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record is inadmissible.”
Presentation of electronic evidence as secondary evidence under Evidence Act
Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides notwithstanding anything in this act,
any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored,
copied in optical or magnetic media produced by the computer shall also be deemed
to be a document, if the conditions mention in subsection (2) satisfied.
These conditions are: condition in respect of computer output shall be:
(a) electronic record containing the information should have been produced by
computer during the period over which the same was used regularly to store or
process the information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that
period by the person having lawful control over the use of computer.
(b) Information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which
the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the
ordinary course of the said activity.
(c ) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly
or; if not then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was
out of operation during that part of period, was not such as to affect the electronic
record or the accuracy of its content.
(d) The information contained in the electronic record reproduced or is derived from
such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said period.
Section 65 B (4) provides the certificate, which identified the electronic record
containing the statement and described the manner in which it was produced giving
the particulars of the device involved in the production of records and deals with the
conditions mentioned in section 65B (2) and is signed by the person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device shall be
evidence of any matter stated in the certificate.
Judgments by Supreme Court
Supreme court in its previous judgment in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot
Sandhu alias Afzal Guru 2005 held that irrespective of the compliance with the
requirement of the section 65B, which has a special provision dealing with the
admissibility of the electronic records there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence
under section 63 and 65, of an electronic record. Section 63 merely provides that
secondary evidence means and includes “copies made from the original by mechanical
process which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the process and copies compared
with such copies.”
Following the principle of that generalia specialibus non derogant, which means
special law will always prevail over general law, court in case of Anvar P.K vs. P.K.
Basheer & ors has overruled the holding of Afzal Guru’s case and held inadmissibility of
the CD’s as these electronic evidence produced without the compliance of the
requirement of the section 65B. Here the special provision of the law is the section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
The judgment in Anvar’s case signifies the concern of our judiciary on reliability of the
electronic evidences. The new approach set up by the court is that the general law
relating to secondary evidence is not applicable in electronic evidence. Electronic
records being more susceptible to tampering and alteration so if the electronic
records, which is not complying with the special provision of the Indian evidence act
that is section 65B, may led to the travesty of justice.
After the Anvar case, for the presentation and admissibility of any electronic evidence
like computer data, CD, VCD, chip any other digital record, there is mandatory
necessity to comply with section 65B of the Act.
III. R V DUDLEY AND STEPHENS
INTRODUCTION
The widely famous case of R v Dudley and Stephens which deals with the taboo act of
cannibalism asks the debatable question of having necessity as a defence. The case
brings forth the beastly side of human nature and shows how it is triggered when
faced with helplessness and proximity to death. The situation is that four men from an
English ship, Mignonette face a storm and are trapped in a boat thousand miles from
the land in the sea without sufficient food or water. After extinguishing their meagre
food they are left with nothing but the vast sea without any sight of land. After going
without food and water for seven days, the captain of the ship, Thomas Dudley decides
that a lot should be drawn to sacrifice one of the four men so that the other three
could survive by feeding on his flesh to which Edward Stephans agreed. Ned Brooks
refused to follow the method and the cabin boy Richard Parker was not consulted.
After some days Dudley and Stephens decided to kill the boy. After the killing, the
three men fed on the boy’s flesh for four days and then they were rescued. Both the
men were tried first at Falmouth then released on bail, and in November stood trial
before a judge, Baron Huddleston, and jury at Exeter. There the jury, at the instigation
of the judge, found a special verdict, setting out the facts and leaving it to the court to
decide whether the men were guilty of murder. In 1884, this procedure had long been
neglected: it was specially revived for the occasion. By various procedural devices, it
was decided to bring the case before a bench of five judges constituting the Queen’s
Bench Division in London. They were found guilty of murder. They were sentenced to
death but later their sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. It was held that
necessity is no defense for a crime.
ISSUES
Whether necessity can be claimed as a defense for murder and can it make the act
permissible?
Whether killing of the boy to save one’s own life, in this case, be termed as an act of
self-defense?
ANALYSIS
The case deals with a few important questions.
First, we encounter the question that how to weigh the value of one’s life against
another? The very fact that Richard Parker was chosen to be killed suggests that his life
was considered less important than the life of the others reason being that Richard
was an orphan and had no family to look after. Even if it was essential to kill one
person to survive, it is just immoral or unjust to kill the weakest and unresisting one. If
this trend of picking on the weakest continues until the rescue arrives, then everyone
would be justified in killing and thereby would not be guilty of murder.
Second, the case deals with the application of Self-defense. The law is that a person
can be justified in taking the life of another only in case of self-defense against the one
whose life was taken. This rule, however, has no application in this case as Parker,
being ill, posed no threat to the men? So the man cannot claim self-defense as a
justification because there was no provocation, implied or otherwise by the unresisting
boy which may encourage the men to take such a drastic action. Moreover, self –
defense which extends to defense of others, is sufficiently flexible to allow the pre-
emptive use of force, provided the person employing the force believes his or her
conduct to be necessary and the use of force is objectively reasonable taking into
consideration the surrounding circumstances. The situation here is quite different as
there is no involvement of Parker at any point in time.
Third, by the killing of the boy, which was itself an immoral act, the defendants with
certainty deprived him of any chances of survival. If was possible that the men might
be rescued the next day in which case it would be a “profitless” act to kill the boy.
Fourth, and the most important is the question whether murder is permissible when
someone dons on the coat of necessity? Necessity, in simple terms is using violence to
repel that is violence which is reasonable, justified and necessary to stop the illegal act
towards oneself. Necessity which justifies homicide is of two kinds, 1. Necessity which
is of private nature and 2. Necessity dealing with public welfare. The first kind which is
relevant for the case, is self-defense which has already been dealt with. In the present
case, however, there was clear murder as the temptation to which the defendants
succumbed is not what law calls “necessity”. Necessity must be inevitable to justify
homicide. Moreover, the concept of “necessity” should extend to everyone, not just
the boy because he was in a disadvantageous position.
CONCLUSION
The court didn’t distinguish between justification and excuse properly. The classical
view treats the defense of necessity as a powerful excuse whereas the modern view
characterizes it as a justification but fails to capture the sort of justification it is.
Although Aristotle’s Magna Moralia says, “what is done from necessity is involuntary
not accompanied by thought.” It makes no effect in the verdict in the case. Necessity
as an excuse would result in the defendant as criminal but not punishable. Using
necessity as an excuse would gradually weaken the system, allowing the defense
would encourage people to overrate the danger to which they are exposed and yield
quickly to temptation. Moreover, necessity provides limited justification by just making
the act morally permissible but will not ensure that the act is the best possible option
to carry out in a certain circumstance. Secondly, the intrusion on the victim’s interests
undermines his/her integrity.
The choice of killing the boy by the two defendants is based on the principles of
Utilitarianism. Given by Jeremy Bentham, the principle suggests that “the just thing to
do is to maximize utility” that is, the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over
sorrow. This principle bases morality on maximizing pleasure. It focuses on the greater
good for the greater number of people. The morality of certain act consists in weighing
the costs and benefits of the act. The consequentialist moral reasoning is along these
lines, the right thing to do depends on the consequences of an act. The act of killing
Parker is justified in the defendants’ view and is supported by these principles. The
defendants were maximizing the pleasure or happiness for themselves and if in the
way they murder someone, in their eyes they did no wrong as their actions had a good
consequence i.e. their own survival, therefore their act is good. The principle, in this
case, results in people taking the law in their own hands. There is a clash in this point.
These principles are clearly violated if we look at things from the boy’s perspective. His
death will not, in any case, maximize his pleasure or happiness neither would it fit for
being a good action as the consequence for him is bad. Here we come across the
concept of categorical moral reasoning. It is put forth by Immanuel Kant, which
suggests that it is not just the consequence of an act but also its intrinsic quality i.e.
certain duties and rights must command our respect and should be intrinsically wrong
or right. The theory of Moral Absolutism runs along the same line suggesting that there
are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged meaning that
some actions are intrinsically right or wrong regardless of the beliefs and goals of the
society and individual. Immanuel Kant was a promoter of this idea.  Dudley and
Stephans had no right to kill the boy, denying him any chances of survival as well as
choosing death on his behalf. It was wrong to succumb to temptation and then cover it
all with the cloak of “necessity”. Question is why was Parker chosen? Just because he is
weak and unresisting and “may” have died eventually. The defendants had no right to
just use the situation to their advantage. If Parker had died a natural death the
situation had been different. Even if Parker had consented to be killed, with or without
a lottery, one questions the morality of the murder. If Parker had been consulted
during the decision on drawing lots, it might be a different issue altogether because
Parker would have exercised his right to have a fair procedure and equal treatment.
During the 19th century practising cannibalism by sailors and seaman was quite a
natural act but there were some conditions. There had to be a draw of lots to ensure
fairness and there should be consent of everyone present. This was the proper
procedure followed at that time- the right thing to do. Dudley and Stephens were not
the first cannibals of their time. A tentative guesswork is that maybe that is why they
were tried, they didn’t follow the procedure and cheated. After the verdict, everything
changed. The savage, barbarous nature of cannibalism was widely condemned and the
custom of the sea denounced as a blasphemous appeal to god to sanction killing.
The law laid down by this case is a good law. It strengthens the justice system by
discouraging people to take the law into their hands. Necessity is never the defense for
any crime. Morality is something more than just what is right, it is a general respect for
another human being.
IV. 2G SPECTRUM CASE

Introduction
As you know spectrum is a natural resource like water, minerals, and land. The Indian
government can sale the spectrum in two ways, one is auction another is fixed price,
the government will have more benefits in the auction but in fixed-price government
can favor any company. In the government of congress Communication and IT minister
A.Raja(2007-2009). He allocates 122 licences of 2G spectrum in the year 2008 with the
fixed price option and he made a condition which favours some telecom companies.
He sold the licence with very low price and without any rules and regulations. Due to
this, the Indian government faced 1.76 lakh crore loss.
Beginning of the Case
A.Raja communication and IT minister in the year 2007-2009 government of congress.
He allocates 122 licences of 2G spectrum in the year 2008 with the fixed price option
and he made a condition which favors some telecom companies. He sold the licence
with a very low price and without any rules and regulations. He reduces the deadline
 of application of 2G spectrum 01.10.2007 to 05.09.2007 due to the reduction of date
so many companies did not apply for 2G spectrum and on the date of issuing the
licence that is 10.01.2008 he gave only some hours to the companies for the
submission of the cheque and other documents. The companies which were favored
by the Raja were ready with their cheque and other documents. On 16.11.2010
comptroller and auditor general of India gave their report and tell Raja did not take
any advice from Law and Finance ministry.
What are the Charges on Former Telecom Minister A Raja
Cheap Telecom Licenses
Entry fee for 2G spectrum licenses 2008 pegged at 2001 prices mobile subscriber base
had shot up to 350 million in 2008 from 4 million in 2001.
No Procedures Followed
 Rules changed by the A.Raja before beginning the 2G Spectrum.
 The date of application reduces 25 days.
 Licenses issued on a fixed price basis.
 No proper auction process followed.
 Raja ignored the advice of TRAI, Law Ministry, Finance Ministry.
 TRAI had recommended auctioning of the spectrum at market rates.
Raja among 12 named in 2G Scam Charge Sheet
Raja, his own secretary R K Chandolia, previous telecom secretary Siddharth Behura
and previous MD of Swan Telecom Shahid Usman Balwa are among the 12 people and
organizations charge-sheeted by the CBI in the 2G Scam. 
The charge sheet, running into 127 pages and having 88,000 annexure, was
documented on Saturday under the steady gaze of judge O P Saini in the exceptional
court set up for the 2G case. The organization has likewise recorded three corporate
majors – Reliance Telecom, Swan Telecom, and Unitech Wireless – that supposedly
profited by the preference appeared by Raja in range distribution. 
Dependence Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group’s (ADAG) overseeing chief Gautam Doshi,
bunch president Surendra Pipara and VP Hari Nair have additionally been named as
blamed alongside Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and Swan executive Vinod Goenka.
While Raja, Chandolia, Behura and Balwa are in a correctional facility, the corporate
 honchos have been asked by the judge to show up under the watchful eye of the court
on April 13. 
The denounced have been reserved for criminal connivance, deceiving, imitation and
under different segments of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Raja and the two other
community workers, Chandolia and Behura, have additionally been accused of abuse
of authority position. In the charge sheet, the CBI has given a well-ordered detail of
how Raja, in trick with the other blamed, caused lost Rs 30,984 crore to the state
exchequer.
The CBI has affirmed that in May 2007, not long after Raja took over as telecom serve,
he designated Chandolia and Behura, who was known to him, in a similar division with
an expectation to incubate criminal connivance. “… Raja went into the trick with other
denounced people and organizations with a reason to issue UAS licenses to Swan (as
the MD, Balwa, was known to him) and furthermore to organizations advanced by
Unitech, by controlling the need list based on letter of plan compliances as opposed to
existing rules/routine with regards to choosing applications based on date of
utilizations according to accessibility of the range,” the charge sheet peruses.
Raja even disregarded the law service’s feeling and proceeded with the slice off dates
so as to help Swan and Unitech. Managing the infringement of the primary start things
out serve premise strategy, the charge sheet says it was re-imagined to profit the
corporate denounced. 
Discussing the double innovation and range assignment, it says Raja overlooked the
TRAI suggestions that a licensee, utilizing one innovation, might be allowed to utilize
an elective one on paying similar charges. He rather dispensed range to Swan in Delhi
circle, absurdly denying Tata Teleservices and Spice Communications which had need
over the blamed organizations. 
The CBI will document an advantageous charge sheet by April 25.
The Accused
 Ex- telecom minister A. Raja
 Ex-telecom secretary Siddharth Behura
 Raja’s PS R K Chandolia (right)
 Swan promoter Shahid Usman Balwa
 Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra
 Vinod Goenka, director of Mumbai-based DB Realty
 Gautam Doshi, group MD of Reliance Telecom
 Hari Nair, Reliance ADAG senior vice-president
 Surendra Pipara, group president, Reliance ADAG
 Swan Telecom
 Reliance Telecom
 Unitech Wireless
Role of CAG in the Case
This report for the year finished March 2010 has been set up for accommodation to
the President under Article 151 of the Constitution. The report contains the
consequences of the assessment by Audit of the Issue of Licenses and Allocation of 2G
Spectrum of Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology. The review covers the period from 2003-04 to 2009-10.
Telecom Commission was not Consulted
From an investigation of the records and data made accessible it gives the idea that
the High Powered Telecom Commission which additionally incorporates low
maintenance individuals from the Ministry of Finance, Industry, IT and Planning
Commission was not notified of the TRAI proposals of August 2007 and consequently,
was not managed a chance to ponder on the benefits of the TRAI suggestions. It is
likewise observed that the High Powered Telecom Commission was not counseled at
the season of award of 122 UAS licenses in 2008.
Hon’ble Prime Minister’s suggestions were not followed
In November 2007, the Hon’ble Prime Minister wrote to Hon’ble MoC&IT and
communicated worry that in the scenery of the insufficient range and the
extraordinary number of uses got for crisp licenses, range valuing through a
reasonable and straightforward strategy for closeout for modification of section
charge, which is at present benchmarked on an old figure, should be rethought. This
counsel of the Hon’ble Prime Minister evoked a quick reaction from the Hon’ble
MoC&IT who around the same time answered that the issue of sale of range was
considered by the TRAI and the Telecom Commission and it was not prescribed by
them as the current permit holders had just got range up to 10 megahertz for each
hover with no range charge. Hon’ble MoC&IT further educated that his Ministry has
arrived at the resolution that it will be out of line, oppressive, self-assertive and
whimsical to sell range to new candidates as it won’t give them a level playing field. He
had in this manner, legitimized the portion of range to a couple of new administrators
in 2008 without rethinking the old section charge found in 2001 disregarding the
exhortation of the Hon’ble Prime Minister.
Issue of the license to ineligible applicants
The process followed by the DoT for verification of applications for UAS licences for
confirming their eligibility lacked due diligence, fairness, and transparency leading to
grant of licences to applicants who were not eligible. Eighty-five out of the 122 licenses
issued in 2008 were found to be issued to Companies which did not satisfy the basic
eligibility conditions set by the DoT and had suppressed facts, disclosed incomplete
information and submitted fictitious documents for getting UAS licenses and thereby
access to spectrum.
What the Court said in its Verdict?
An extraordinary CBI court on Thursday vindicated each of the 18 denounced including
A Raja and K Kanimozhi in 2G range assignment case. The trick became exposed very
nearly seven years prior when the Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG in a report
considered then Telecom Minister A Raja in charge of causing the state exchequer lost
Rs 1,76,379 crore by dispensing 2G range licenses at disposable costs. Yet, today the
court found that the indictment neglected to demonstrate the charges. This decision,
notwithstanding, doesn’t abrogate the Supreme Court judgment or detract from the
way that the licenses issued during 2G range distribution were unlawful. 
The charge sheet of the moment case depends for the most part on a misreading,
specific perusing, non-perusing and outside the realm of relevance perusing of the
official record, Special Judge OP Saini said in his decision. The charge sheet depends on
some oral proclamations made by the observers during the examination, which the
observers have not possessed up in the observer box, Special Judge included. 
Conclusion
Nearly six years after 122 2G licences were cancelled by the Supreme Court, a Special
Court on Thursday acquitted all accused, including former Telecom Minister
Andimuthu Raja and DMK chief M Karunanidhi’s daughter, Kanimozhi, who was named
as perpetrators of one of the biggest scams in the history of India. The court said the
prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove any charge against any of the accused.
 “There is no proof on the record delivered under the steady gaze of the court showing
any guiltiness in the demonstrations supposedly dedicated by the blamed people
identifying with obsession for the cut-off date, control of first-start things out served
policy…I have positively no delay in holding that the indictment has pitiably neglected
to demonstrate any charge against any of the denounced.
V. SATYAM SCAM
Introduction
The infamous Satyam scam
Facts
1. It was once known as the rising star of India. Formed in the year 1987 by Mr
Ramalinga Raju with just 20 employees.
2. The company boomed and developed through the period of 2003-2008 and
by the end of March 2008, Satyam’s sales had reached a high of USD$467 an annual
growth compound rate of 35% and it had much more achievements.
3. Six months after team ‘Satyam’ received the ‘Golden Peacock award’, on 6th
January 2009, allegations of fraud were made and it was contended that he had been
manipulating with the accounts of the company for years (Rs. 7,316 Crores).
4. This scandal is a complete display of one’s carelessness of fiduciary
responsibilities, total collapse of ethnic standards; fierce competition and the need to
impress stakeholders especially investors, analysts, shareholders, and the stock
market; low ethical and moral standards by top management and, greater emphasis on
short-term performance. [i]
Issue of law
The charges under which the accused were booked by CBI, Hyderabad were various
provisions of the Indian Penal Code-  Section 120 B, 406, 420, 467, 471 and 477 A for
violating various income tax laws.
Aftermath of the revelation
This led to a complete downfall of the company. The Citibank where Satyam
maintained its bank accounts were frozen. Several arrests were made including Mr.
Raju and his brother. The BOD was disbanded and the Central Government on its own
motion appointed 10 new directors. Satyam was removed from Sensex and Nifty. CBI
took over the investigation and filed three charge sheets.
The next concern for the government after happening of such events of great concern
was to somehow save this company.  This was done through the selling of the
company. The successful bidder in doing so was ‘Tech Mahindra’ which overtook
‘Satyam’ and now it is known as ‘Mahindra Satyam’.
Mr. Raju was granted bail on the ground that the limitation period of filing the charge
sheet by the CBI had expired. Enforcement Directorate files a criminal complaint
against 47 persons and 166 corporate entities headed by Ramalinga Raju. Ramalinga
Raju and three others were given six months jail term by SFIO.
The Judge postponed the verdict citing voluminous documents. Ramalinga Raju and
nine others, two of their family members, were sentenced to seven years rigorous
imprisonment on Thursday in the country’s largest-ever corporate fraud. Mr. Raju
along with the other convicted individuals were out on a bail given by a special court in
Hyderabad. [ii]
Judgment
The accused were found guilty of bogus inflation of the company’s revenue, the
accounts of the company were falsified, income tax return were falsified and the
invoices of the transactions were fabricated.
Mr Raju was granted bail on the ground that the limitation period of filing the charge
sheet by the CBI had expired. Enforcement Directorate files a criminal complaint
against 47 persons and 166 corporate entities headed by Ramalinga Raju. Ramalinga
Raju and three others were given six months jail term by SFIO.
The Judge postponed the verdict citing voluminous documents. Ramalinga Raju and
nine others, two of their family members, were sentenced to seven years rigorous
imprisonment on Thursday in the country’s largest-ever corporate fraud. Mr Raju along
with other convicted individuals were out on a bail given by a special court in
Hyderabad. [ii]The accused were found guilty of bogus inflation of the company’s
revenue, the accounts of the company were falsified, income tax return were falsified
and the invoices of the transactions were fabricated.
There were 10 accused in total (Let them be A1- A10) and all were found guilty under
Section 120-B and Section 420 of IPC, A1 and A2 were found guilty  under 409 of IPC,
A3, A4, and A7 were founder guilty under Section 406 of IPC, A4 , A5 and A7 were
found guilty under Section 419 of IPC, A1 to A5 and A6 to A9 were found guilty under
Section 467, Section 468 of IPC, Section 471 and 477A of IPC.
 The ten accused were:-  Ramalinga Raju, Rama Raju, Vadlamani Seinivasu, Subramani
Gopalakrishnan, Talluri Srinivas, Byrrarju Suryanarayana Raju, G, Ramakrishna, D.
Venkapathi Raju, Ch. Srisailam and V. Suryanarayana Prabhakar Gupta.
Now, we shall discuss the important regulatory bodies involved in investigating this
case.
SEBI
On 12th April 1992, under the provisions of the SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of
India), SEBI was established. The Preamble of the Securities and Exchange Board of
India reads out the core function of the body which is “…to protect the interests of
investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the
securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. This
single body performs three functions:
1. Quasi-legislative: Rules and regulations are drafted,
2. Quasi-judicial: It gives orders and passes its rulings.
3. Quasi-executive: Investigation is done and enforces the orders.
Although this kind of composition of this body makes it very powerful, its orders are
checked by a higher authority, SAT (Securities Appellate Tribunal), the appellate body.
[iii]
The Satyam case also changed the perspective of SEBI while discharging its functions
and nevertheless this had to be done since this scam is still the biggest scam in India’s
corporate sector. Following the Satyam scam, SEBI has turned instrumental and has
started taking immediate and much effective actions.
Role of SEBI in the Satyam case
SEBI under Section 17 of the SEBI Act, 1992 took out an extensive investigation into the
conduct of Satyam and checked whether the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and
Rules, and Regulations framed have been violated. They also inspected the available
books of account and pertained to the financial statements of Satyam. They also
inspected the documents held by the auditors of Satyam which was ‘Pricewaterhouse
Coopers’.
Mr Raju in his declaration letter about his mischievous and fraudulent activities
claimed that the reason behind his declaration was because annually he was juggling
with the revenue figures because he couldn’t juggle with the expenditure figures so
easily, the gap between the ‘book’ profit and ‘actual profit’ kept on increasing every
year. He went ahead to buy Maytas Infrastructure and Maytas Properties in order to
end the gap and show a real profit of the company or else the company might die. His
target was to wipe out the fictitious profits by doing a real deal in which he ultimately
failed and subsequently he wrote the letter.[iv]
After this breathtaking revelation which was being termed as the biggest corporate
fraud which had shaken everybody, SEBI had kept a target for itself to sell off the
company since it was the last resort through which the company could have been
saved. SEBI met with the government appointed Board Of Directors, accountants,
bankers, government officials and lawyers in order to come up with a plan
immediately.
All of them worked superbly and diligently and brought back the company’s stability
and confidence within the 100-day deadline. SEBI has geared up and pulled up its socks
after this scam and has enhanced its working. The SEBI chief at the time of this case,
Mr C.B. Dave said “Meanwhile, we are looking at some long-term system
improvement. There will be quite a few things we will learn from this incident and we
will take steps for necessary changes accordingly.[v]”
SEBI relaxed the takeover norms at the request of the government-appointed board of
directors of Satyam and the Company Law Board (CLB) permitted selection of the
strategic investor fulfilling certain regulatory requirements. SEBI laid down that the
interested investor should buy the stake from the newly issued shares amounting to 31
percent of the company’s share capital.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) approved to Satyam Computer
Services for choosing a strategic investor to acquire 51 percent of stake in the
embattled company through a global competitive bidding process which led to the
buying of Satyam Computer services by Tech Mahindra. [vi]
SAT (Securities Appellate Tribunal)
Securities Appellate Tribunal is a statutory body which was established under the
provisions of Section 15K of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Its
main function looks after the appeals in reference to the orders by the SEBI or any
adjudicating officer under the SEBI Act and to exercise jurisdiction, powers, and
authority conferred on the Tribunal by or under this Act or any other law for the time
being in force[ix]
PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers)
PricewaterhouseCoopers is a multinational professional services network
headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is the second largest professional
services firm in the world.  It deals with the auditing work of huge organizations and is
the most reliable option.
In January 2009 PwC was criticised along with the promoters of Satyam, an Indian IT
firm listed on the NASDAQ, in a $1.5 billion fraud. [vii]
PwC wrote a letter to the board of directors of Satyam that its audit may be rendered
“inaccurate and unreliable” due to the disclosures made by Satyam’s (ex) Chairman
and subsequently withdrew its audit opinions.[viii]
Recent developments – Price waterhouse about the SEBI’s order and SAT
In the order given by SEBI on 10th January 2018, SEBI has come hard on PwC with this
order. It has imposed a ban on all the firms in the PwC network from auditing listed
companies and intermediaries (brokers) [x]for a period of two years held guilty under
the Satyam scam.  The 108-page SEBI’s order said that they were not complying with
the auditing standards and did not report such a wide gap developing in the balance
sheets of Satyam and PwC was deceitful along with the main parties involved in the
biggest corporate fraud.[xi]The order against PwC was passed as per Section 11 of the
SEBI Act and the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices(UFTP). Section 11
of the SEBI Act gives authority to SEBI to pass orders in the favor of the investors. [xii]
Current development of the case
Following the ban on PwC, in an email conversation, the spokesperson of the firm said,
“We are disappointed with the findings of the Sebi investigations and the adjudication
order. The Sebi order relates to a fraud that took place nearly a decade ago in which
we played no part and had no knowledge of”. [xiii]
The Bombay High court had ruled in the year 2010 that ‘no direction can be issued
against PwC if there is only some omission without proof of connivance and intent to
fraud’, SEBI was probing the audit firm’s role in the accounting fraud. PwC was
appointed as the auditor of Satyam between 2000-2008. PwC showed a complete
negligence and carelessness while performing its practice of auditing. According to
SEBI, PwC showed a total disregard of stipulated auditing practice which indicated
their complicity in the manipulation.
Following these developments, PwC has decided to challenge the order passed by SEBI
in the SAT (Securities Appellate Tribunal). The petition filed is set aside the order and
remove the ban on an interim basis until the final order comes.
Conclusion
In wake of the biggest corporate fraud in India where India is the third largest
developing economy in entire Asia, its high time that India should take stringent
measures to fill in the loopholes so that the economy of our country is saved by
masterminds and greedy people. Though after the Satyam scam, the regulatory bodies
have advanced their functioning and have taken stringent measures against the
wrongdoers. The order against PwC can be seen as one example. It shall be very
interesting to see the development of this case when the appeal gets heard at SAT.