This article has been written by Jagatha Guna Sai Venkat.
Abstract
The 2G Spectrum Scam is one of the most significant corruption cases in Indian history, revealing deep-rooted issues in the allocation of telecommunications licenses during the UPA government’s tenure in 2008. The scam involved the alleged underpricing and improper allocation of 2G spectrum licenses, which led to a loss of approximately ₹1.76 lakh crore to the Indian exchequer, as estimated by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. Key political figures, including then-telecommunications minister A. Raja, were implicated, leading to widespread public outrage and legal scrutiny. This case not only brought to light the vulnerabilities in India’s regulatory framework but also set a precedent in the judicial intervention in corruption cases, with the Supreme Court canceling 122 licenses in 2012. The 2G Spectrum Scam significantly influenced Indian jurisprudence on corruption, leading to reforms in public policy and strengthening the mechanisms for accountability and transparency in governance. This article examines the case’s background, legal proceedings, and its profound impact on Indian corruption jurisprudence, shedding light on how it reshaped public policy and the legal landscape in India.
Keywords
2G Spectrum Scam, Indian Corruption, Telecommunications, A. Raja, UPA Government, Supreme Court of India, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Judicial Intervention, Legal Reforms, Prevention of Corruption Act, Spectrum Allocation, License Cancellation, Indian Jurisprudence, Public Policy.
Introduction
The 2G Spectrum Scam is a landmark case in Indian corruption jurisprudence, symbolizing the nexus between politics, business, and corruption. Unfolding in 2008, this scam revolved around the allocation of 2G spectrum licenses to telecom companies at significantly undervalued prices, resulting in a massive financial loss to the Indian government. The scam, which came to light during the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, exposed the flaws in the regulatory framework and the opaque decision-making processes that facilitated large-scale corruption.
At the center of the controversy was A. Raja, the then-Minister of Telecommunications, who was accused of manipulating the spectrum allocation process to favor certain companies. The spectrum, a valuable resource for telecom operators, was allocated on a first-come, first-served basis instead of through an auction, which would have ensured transparency and maximized revenue for the government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India later estimated that this arbitrary allocation led to a loss of approximately ₹1.76 lakh crore to the exchequer, a figure that captured the public’s imagination and fueled widespread outrage.
The scam was not just a financial scandal; it also had far-reaching political and legal implications. It triggered a series of investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and led to the arrest of several high-profile individuals, including A. Raja and corporate executives. The case also became a significant point of contention in Indian politics, contributing to the UPA government’s declining popularity and influencing the outcome of the 2014 General Elections, which saw the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister.
In addition to its political impact, the 2G Spectrum Scam set a new precedent in Indian legal history. The Supreme Court of India’s intervention, which led to the cancellation of 122 telecom licenses in 2012, marked a turning point in the judicial oversight of corruption cases. This case underscored the importance of transparency, accountability, and judicial intervention in curbing corruption within the highest echelons of power.
This article delves into the intricate details of the 2G Spectrum Scam, examining its background, the legal proceedings, and its profound impact on Indian corruption jurisprudence. Through this analysis, we aim to understand how this case reshaped public policy and the legal landscape in India, setting the stage for future anti-corruption efforts.
Background of the 2G Spectrum Allocation
To understand the 2G Spectrum Scam, it is crucial to first grasp the significance of the 2G spectrum itself and the policies governing its allocation in India. The 2G spectrum refers to the second generation of mobile telecommunications technology, which enabled digital voice communication and basic data services like SMS and internet access. In the early 2000s, as mobile telephony began to take off in India, the demand for spectrum—radio frequencies used for transmitting data over the airwaves—grew exponentially.
The Indian government, recognizing the strategic importance of the telecommunications sector, controlled the allocation of spectrum, which was considered a national resource. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was responsible for the distribution of these licenses to telecom operators. The objective was to ensure that the spectrum was allocated in a manner that promoted growth in the telecommunications sector while also maximizing revenue for the government.
The policy framework governing spectrum allocation in India, however, was marred by inconsistencies and a lack of transparency. Initially, the spectrum was allocated on a first-come, first-served (FCFS) basis. This method was intended to streamline the allocation process and encourage competition among telecom operators. However, the FCFS approach had several flaws, particularly when the demand for spectrum far outstripped supply. This created opportunities for manipulation, as companies could exploit the system to secure spectrum at undervalued rates, leading to potential revenue losses for the government.
In 2001, the government set a fixed entry fee for the allocation of 2G spectrum licenses based on the rates determined in that year. This decision, although seemingly straightforward, laid the groundwork for the 2G Spectrum Scam. By 2008, the telecommunications landscape had drastically changed, with a massive increase in mobile subscribers and the commercial value of spectrum. Despite this, the DoT, under the leadership of then-Telecommunications Minister A. Raja, continued to allocate spectrum at the 2001 rates, ignoring the need for a revised pricing mechanism that reflected the current market value.
This decision was compounded by other irregularities in the allocation process. The DoT deviated from the established procedure by preponing the cutoff date for applications, thereby excluding several potential applicants. This move, along with the hasty manner in which licenses were awarded, raised suspicions of favoritism and corruption. Companies with alleged connections to political figures were reportedly given undue advantages, further undermining the integrity of the allocation process.
The lack of transparency in the spectrum allocation, coupled with the government’s refusal to adopt a competitive bidding process like auctions, drew criticism from various quarters, including the media, civil society, and political opposition. The mounting concerns culminated in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being filed in the Supreme Court by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), which played a pivotal role in bringing the scam to light.
In summary, the background of the 2G Spectrum Allocation is characterized by policy loopholes, administrative opacity, and political interference. These factors created a fertile ground for corruption, setting the stage for what would become one of the most notorious scams in India’s history. The decisions made during this period not only led to significant financial losses but also sparked a legal and political crisis that would have lasting implications for the country.
Unveiling of the Scam
The 2G Spectrum Scam came to public attention through a combination of investigative journalism, whistleblowers, and persistent legal activism. This section delves into the critical events and key players who exposed one of the largest corruption scandals in Indian history, ultimately leading to widespread public outrage and significant legal consequences.
Role of Investigative Journalism
The first major revelations about irregularities in the 2G spectrum allocation process were made by the Indian media, particularly through investigative journalism. A turning point came in 2008 when a series of reports published by The Times of India and other leading newspapers raised serious concerns about the manner in which spectrum licenses were being distributed. These reports highlighted the underpricing of the spectrum, pointing out that licenses were being granted at 2001 prices, despite the dramatic increase in the value of telecommunications assets by 2008.
The media’s scrutiny intensified when it became clear that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), under the leadership of then-Telecommunications Minister A. Raja, had bypassed established norms and procedures. For instance, the sudden advancement of the cutoff date for applications was widely reported, suggesting that the process had been rigged to benefit certain companies. These reports played a crucial role in bringing the issue to the forefront of public discourse, putting pressure on the government to respond.
The Role of Whistleblowers
In addition to the media, whistleblowers within the telecommunications industry and government agencies provided crucial information that further exposed the scam. Some officials in the DoT, disturbed by the apparent manipulation of the spectrum allocation process, began leaking documents and information to the press and activists. These leaks included internal communications that revealed how the cutoff dates were altered and how some companies were favored over others. The leaked documents also indicated that the DoT had ignored recommendations from other government agencies that had suggested a more transparent and competitive auction process.
One of the most significant whistleblowers was Ashok Chawla, who was then the Finance Secretary. Chawla had raised objections to the way the spectrum was being allocated, advocating for a transparent auction process that would reflect the true market value of the licenses. His warnings were ignored, but his concerns became a key piece of evidence when the scam was later investigated.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
The exposure of these irregularities led to the filing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), a non-governmental organization known for its work in promoting transparency and accountability in governance. The PIL, filed in 2010, alleged that the 2G spectrum allocation had been manipulated to benefit a few companies, causing a massive loss to the public exchequer. The petitioners demanded that the court take action against those responsible and ensure that such corruption did not go unpunished.
The Supreme Court’s response to the PIL was swift and decisive. Recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, the court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The court also monitored the progress of the investigation, ensuring that there was no interference from political quarters.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Report
Another critical development in the unveiling of the 2G Spectrum Scam was the release of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India’s report in November 2010. The CAG, an independent authority responsible for auditing government expenditures, conducted a detailed examination of the 2G spectrum allocation process. The report was damning, estimating that the government had incurred a loss of approximately ₹1.76 lakh crore due to the undervaluation of spectrum licenses. The CAG’s findings provided concrete evidence of the financial impact of the scam, further fueling public anger and calls for accountability.[1]
The CAG report was a turning point in the case, as it provided a credible and authoritative assessment of the financial loss caused by the scam. It also highlighted the systemic failures in the government’s policy framework, emphasizing the need for reforms to prevent such abuses of power in the future.
Escalation to Legal and Political Crisis
The combined efforts of investigative journalism, whistleblowers, and legal activism culminated in a full-blown legal and political crisis. The CBI investigation led to the arrest of A. Raja, along with several other high-profile individuals, including executives from major telecom companies. The scandal also severely damaged the credibility of the UPA government, contributing to its electoral defeat in 2014.
The unveiling of the 2G Spectrum Scam not only exposed the deep-rooted corruption in India’s telecommunications sector but also demonstrated the power of a vigilant press, committed whistleblowers, and an active judiciary in holding the powerful accountable. The case would go on to become a defining moment in India’s fight against corruption, influencing legal and policy reforms for years to come.
Legal Proceedings and Judicial Intervention
The legal proceedings and judicial intervention in the 2G Spectrum Scam marked a watershed moment in Indian jurisprudence, with significant implications for how corruption cases are handled in the country. This section explores the critical legal battles, the role of the Supreme Court, the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the outcomes of the trials that followed.
Supreme Court’s Initial Intervention
The first significant judicial intervention came in response to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) in 2010. The PIL, which alleged massive corruption in the allocation of 2G spectrum licenses, prompted the Supreme Court to take a proactive role in investigating the case. Recognizing the gravity of the allegations and the potential involvement of high-level government officials, the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the matter.
In November 2010, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark order, directing the CBI to investigate not only the role of the then-Telecommunications Minister A. Raja but also the involvement of other government officials and corporate entities. The court also appointed a special bench to monitor the progress of the investigation, ensuring that the inquiry was conducted impartially and without interference from political quarters. This judicial oversight was crucial in maintaining the integrity of the investigation, given the high-profile nature of the case and the powerful interests involved.
The Role of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
The CBI’s investigation, initiated under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court, was one of the most extensive and high-profile inquiries in India’s history. The agency was tasked with uncovering the full extent of the corruption in the 2G spectrum allocation process and identifying all individuals and entities involved.
The investigation led to the arrest of A. Raja in February 2011, along with several other key figures, including Kanimozhi, a Member of Parliament and the daughter of M. Karunanidhi, the then-Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. High-ranking executives from major telecom companies, such as Unitech Wireless, Swan Telecom, and Reliance Communications, were also implicated and arrested. The CBI charged these individuals with a range of offenses, including conspiracy, forgery, and bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The CBI’s investigation revealed a complex web of financial transactions and illegal dealings, including the transfer of large sums of money to companies and individuals with connections to the ruling party. The agency also uncovered evidence of forged documents and manipulated records used to justify the allocation of spectrum licenses at below-market rates. These findings formed the basis of the prosecution’s case in the subsequent trials.
Key Case Laws and Judicial Decisions
One of the most critical judicial decisions in the 2G Spectrum Scam case was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja (2012), which centered on the legitimacy of the spectrum allocation process. In this case, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a political leader and anti-corruption activist, argued that the allocation of spectrum licenses on a first-come, first-served basis was arbitrary and unconstitutional. He contended that the process violated the principles of fairness and transparency and that the government should have conducted an auction to allocate the spectrum.[2]
The Supreme Court agreed with Swamy’s arguments, ruling that the allocation of 2G spectrum licenses was “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to public interest.” The court held that the first-come, first-served policy adopted by the DoT was fundamentally flawed and violated the constitutional mandate of equality before the law. In a historic judgment delivered on February 2, 2012, the Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of 122 telecom licenses granted in 2008[3], a decision that sent shockwaves through the industry and the political establishment.
The ruling in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) further reinforced the Supreme Court’s stance on the issue. In this case, the court held that the actions of the DoT and the then-Telecommunications Minister A. Raja were not only illegal but also constituted a significant breach of public trust. The court emphasized the need for greater transparency and accountability in the allocation of public resources, calling for reforms to prevent similar abuses of power in the future.
Trial and Acquittal
Following the Supreme Court’s intervention, the trial in the 2G Spectrum Scam case began in 2011 in the Special CBI Court in New Delhi, with Judge O.P. Saini presiding. The trial was one of the most closely watched legal proceedings in India, given the high-profile nature of the accused and the public interest in the case.
The prosecution, led by the CBI, presented a detailed case against A. Raja, Kanimozhi, and other accused, arguing that they had conspired to manipulate the spectrum allocation process for personal and political gain. The CBI’s case was built on a vast array of evidence, including financial records, internal government communications, and testimony from witnesses.
However, in a surprising turn of events, the Special CBI Court acquitted all the accused on December 21, 2017. In his judgment, Judge O.P. Saini stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court criticized the CBI’s investigation, noting that there was a lack of credible evidence to support the allegations of conspiracy and corruption. The acquittal was a major blow to the prosecution and led to widespread debate and criticism, with many questioning the efficacy of the judicial process in high-profile corruption cases.
Aftermath and Impact
The acquittal in the 2G Spectrum Scam case was met with mixed reactions. While the accused hailed the judgment as a vindication, the decision raised concerns about the challenges of prosecuting complex white-collar crimes in India. The case also highlighted the difficulties faced by investigative agencies in gathering concrete evidence against powerful individuals and the limitations of the legal system in securing convictions in such cases.
Despite the acquittal, the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in 2012, which canceled the telecom licenses, remained a significant legal precedent. The decision had far-reaching implications for India’s telecommunications industry, leading to the restructuring of the sector and the adoption of more transparent processes for the allocation of spectrum. The case also underscored the need for legal and policy reforms to address the systemic issues that allowed such corruption to occur.
In conclusion, the legal proceedings and judicial intervention in the 2G Spectrum Scam case were pivotal in shaping India’s approach to combating corruption. While the ultimate acquittal of the accused highlighted the challenges of prosecuting corruption cases, the Supreme Court’s proactive role in the investigation and its landmark rulings set important precedents for future cases. The 2G Spectrum Scam remains a key reference point in Indian legal history, illustrating both the strengths and limitations of the country’s judicial system in addressing corruption at the highest levels.
Impact on Indian Corruption Jurisprudence
The 2G Spectrum Scam has left an indelible mark on Indian corruption jurisprudence, reshaping the legal and regulatory framework governing the allocation of public resources and influencing subsequent judicial approaches to corruption cases. This section examines the broader implications of the scam on legal reforms, judicial practices, and the public’s perception of corruption in India.
Legal Reforms and Policy Changes
One of the most significant impacts of the 2G Spectrum Scam was the impetus it provided for legal reforms aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the allocation of public resources. The Supreme Court’s intervention, which led to the cancellation of 122 telecom licenses in 2012, set a critical precedent that underscored the importance of fairness and transparency in governmental decision-making processes. This ruling sent a strong message that the allocation of valuable public assets, such as spectrum, must be conducted through transparent, competitive, and legally sound procedures.
In response to the revelations from the scam, the Indian government and regulatory bodies undertook several reforms to prevent such abuses in the future. A significant development was the shift from the first-come, first-served (FCFS) policy to competitive auctions for spectrum allocation. This move was designed to ensure that spectrum licenses were awarded to the highest bidder, thereby maximizing revenue for the exchequer and minimizing opportunities for corruption.
Furthermore, the 2G scam influenced the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The amendments, introduced in 2018, aimed to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting corruption cases, with provisions for harsher penalties, quicker trials, and greater protection for whistleblowers. The amendments also clarified the definitions of corrupt practices and enhanced the accountability of public officials, reflecting the lessons learned from the 2G Spectrum Scam.
Judicial Oversight and Activism
The 2G Spectrum Scam highlighted the critical role of judicial oversight in addressing corruption, particularly in cases involving high-level government officials and complex economic transactions. The Supreme Court’s proactive stance in this case, including its decision to monitor the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, marked a significant moment in Indian judicial activism. The court’s involvement ensured that the investigation was conducted impartially, free from political interference, and that the accused were held accountable through a transparent legal process.
This case also reinforced the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of fairness and equality in the distribution of public resources. The Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment, which declared the spectrum allocation process unconstitutional, emphasized that the government’s actions must align with the constitutional mandate of equality before the law. This ruling has since been cited in other cases involving the allocation of public resources, shaping the legal discourse around governmental accountability.
Influence on Subsequent Corruption Cases
The 2G Spectrum Scam has had a lasting impact on how subsequent corruption cases are prosecuted and adjudicated in India. The case served as a blueprint for handling large-scale corruption scandals, with lessons learned about the importance of thorough investigations, credible evidence, and judicial oversight. The principles established in the 2G case, particularly regarding the scrutiny of government policies and the need for transparent processes, have been applied in other high-profile cases, such as the Coalgate Scam and the Commonwealth Games Scam.
Moreover, the 2G case has influenced the judiciary’s approach to public interest litigation (PIL) as a tool for challenging governmental corruption. The success of the PIL in this case demonstrated the effectiveness of judicial intervention in protecting public interest, encouraging civil society organizations and individuals to use PILs to expose and challenge corruption in other areas of governance.
Public Perception and Political Impact
Beyond the legal realm, the 2G Spectrum Scam profoundly affected public perception of corruption in India. The scandal exposed the extent to which corruption had permeated the highest levels of government, leading to widespread public disillusionment with the political establishment. This growing public awareness and demand for accountability played a significant role in the 2014 General Elections, where the electorate decisively rejected the incumbent United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, largely due to its perceived involvement in and mishandling of corruption scandals like the 2G Scam.
The case also contributed to the rise of anti-corruption movements and the demand for systemic changes in governance. The establishment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which created an independent anti-corruption ombudsman, can be seen as part of the broader response to the public outcry against corruption, fueled by cases like the 2G Scam.
The 2G Spectrum Scam has had a profound and lasting impact on Indian corruption jurisprudence, influencing legal reforms, judicial practices, and public perceptions. The case underscored the necessity of transparent and accountable governance, leading to significant changes in how public resources are managed and how corruption is addressed. It also highlighted the crucial role of the judiciary in safeguarding public interest and ensuring that the rule of law prevails, even in cases involving the most powerful figures in the country.
Public and Political Reaction
The 2G Spectrum Scam elicited a strong and multifaceted reaction from both the public and the political arena in India. As the details of the scandal emerged, the widespread corruption and the involvement of high-profile political figures ignited a wave of public outrage and significantly altered the country’s political landscape.
Public Outcry and Media Influence
The public’s reaction to the 2G Spectrum Scam was one of intense anger and disillusionment. The sheer scale of the corruption—estimated to have cost the government ₹1.76 lakh crore—shocked the nation and led to widespread demands for accountability. The media played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion, with relentless coverage of the scandal that kept it at the forefront of national discourse. News channels, newspapers, and digital media extensively reported on the details of the scam, the legal proceedings, and the figures involved, ensuring that the issue remained a topic of daily conversation among the populace.
The media’s role went beyond mere reporting; it also acted as a catalyst for public mobilization. The relentless exposure of the scandal’s intricacies contributed to a growing public sentiment that corruption had become deeply entrenched within the political system, leading to calls for systemic change.
Political Ramifications
Politically, the 2G Spectrum Scam had far-reaching consequences, particularly for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by the Indian National Congress (INC). The scandal became a symbol of the UPA government’s perceived ineptitude and corruption, significantly eroding its public support. Opposition parties, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), capitalized on the issue, using it as a rallying point to criticize the government and demand resignations.
The scam also contributed to a broader loss of confidence in the political establishment, with voters expressing their frustration at the polls. The 2014 General Elections saw the UPA suffer a crushing defeat, with the BJP, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, securing a decisive victory. The BJP’s campaign, which emphasized clean governance and the promise of a corruption-free administration, resonated with an electorate that was disillusioned by the scandals that had plagued the UPA’s tenure, of which the 2G Spectrum Scam was the most prominent.
Rise of Anti-Corruption Movements
The 2G Spectrum Scam also fueled the growth of anti-corruption movements across the country. The public’s frustration with corruption and the perceived inadequacies of the political system led to the emergence of new political entities, most notably the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which was born out of the India Against Corruption movement. The AAP, led by Arvind Kejriwal, positioned itself as a champion of transparency and clean governance, gaining significant traction in urban areas and eventually winning the Delhi state elections in 2013.
In summary, the public and political reaction to the 2G Spectrum Scam was profound, with the scandal not only shaking public confidence in the government but also reshaping the political landscape of India. It highlighted the power of the media in holding the government accountable, the role of opposition parties in mobilizing public sentiment, and the emergence of new political movements driven by a desire for clean governance. The fallout from the scam continues to influence Indian politics, serving as a reminder of the need for transparency and accountability in public life.
Conclusion
The 2G Spectrum Scam stands as a landmark case in Indian corruption jurisprudence, not only due to the sheer scale of financial malfeasance involved but also because of the profound legal, political, and social consequences it triggered. This scandal exposed the deep-rooted corruption within the Indian political and bureaucratic systems, where public resources were manipulated for private gain at the expense of the nation’s treasury. The fallout from the scam was multifaceted, influencing everything from public policy to electoral politics, and leaving a lasting impact on how corruption is perceived and addressed in India.
One of the most significant outcomes of the 2G Spectrum Scam was the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s intervention, particularly its decision to cancel 122 telecom licenses, set a critical precedent for judicial oversight in matters involving large-scale corruption and the allocation of public resources. This decision reinforced the principle that government actions must be transparent, fair, and aligned with the constitutional mandate of equality before the law. It also demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to challenge the decisions of the executive branch, thereby safeguarding public interest.
The scandal also catalyzed crucial legal reforms, including amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which strengthened the legal framework for prosecuting corruption cases. These reforms, combined with the shift towards more transparent processes for the allocation of public assets, reflect a broader commitment to preventing the recurrence of such abuses of power in the future.
Politically, the 2G Spectrum Scam played a decisive role in reshaping India’s political landscape. The public outrage generated by the scandal contributed to the downfall of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and the subsequent rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 2014 General Elections. The BJP’s victory was, in part, fueled by its promise to tackle corruption and restore integrity to governance, a promise that resonated with an electorate disillusioned by the numerous scandals that had marred the UPA’s tenure.
Moreover, the scam gave rise to a new wave of political activism, epitomized by the emergence of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which capitalized on the growing demand for transparency and accountability in government. This shift towards anti-corruption politics reflects a broader societal change, where citizens are increasingly unwilling to tolerate corruption and are more vocal in demanding clean governance.
In conclusion, the 2G Spectrum Scam is more than just a case of corruption; it is a pivotal event that reshaped Indian jurisprudence, influenced public policy, and altered the country’s political dynamics. The lessons learned from this scandal continue to inform India’s ongoing struggle against corruption, highlighting the need for vigilance, transparency, and accountability in all aspects of governance.
References
- Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja.
- Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1.
- Comptroller and Auditor General of India, “Performance Audit Report on the Issue of Licences and Allocation of 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications,” Report No. 19 of 2010-11.
- The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Government of India.
- The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Government of India.
- Central Bureau of Investigation, “Final Report in the 2G Spectrum Case,” Special CBI Court, New Delhi, December 2017.
- “Scam, or folklore? on 2G case verdict” The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/scam-or-folklore/article22178907.ece
[1] Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Report No. 19 of 2010-11, “Performance Audit Report on the Issue of Licences and Allocation of 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications.”
[2] Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja
[3] Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1.
