Govt to honestly administer policy decided by House: Salve

Senior Supreme Court advocate Harish Salve explains to CNBC-TV18 that the Court has clarified that the maximisation of revenue was not a Constitutional mandate and that the 2G spectrum was different from other natural resources.

Also Read: Judiciary has right to scrutinise policy decisions: Experts
Salve highlighted that Court also clarified that there could be no deviation from the policy announced in 2001, which called for the determination of a price discovery by the market.
Salve adds that as long as the government honestly administers the policy decided in Parliament, there would not be any problems. However, he revealed, that the government could amend the law if it wanted to. Below is an edited transcript of the interview on CNBC-TV18. Q: What, according to you, are the implications of the Supreme Court's opinion?
A: There are two key issues which have now come out very clearly. Firstly, revenue maximisation is not a Constitutional mandate. This is something which I have always been fighting for. But what the Court has brought out is that revenue maximisation is not a Constitutional imperative which obviously implies that an auction cannot be a Constitutional imperative. Secondly, the difference between 2G spectrum and other resources is very clear.
A government policy released in 2001 said that the price on 2G spectrum must be based on a discovered price. Obviously this must mean a price discovered by market and in the interaction with former telecom minister Raja, the Prime Minister directed the use of an auction to allocated spectrum.
If despite this there is a deviation from policy coupled with the fact that the Court found the government’s reply to be totally non-transparent, opaque and arbitrary, then obviously, an auction was the answer. That is what the Court has directed and the government has repeatedly told the Court that it has no problems with the auction of spectrum. Q: While the Supreme Court has said that an auction was not the only way forward, it also mentions that revenue maximisation was not always necessary. Do you believe that government will still go ahead with auctioning of natural resources fearing repercussions from scathing CAG reports? Do you believe that the government will continue to implement the auction?
A: I am sure the CAG will correct its perspective. If the government policy calls for revenue maximisation, but the method followed does not ensure revenue maximisation, the CAG would be duty-bound to report a loss which would not be presumptive, but an actual loss. If the government is not concerned with revenue maximisation, I think it is beyond the purview of the CAG to find fault with revenue maximisation. Q: What does this mean for telecom companies like Sistema who have filed curative petitions before the Supreme Court? Will today's Supreme Court order as far as the Presidential Reference is concerned have any impact on the curative petitions?
A: Nothing at all. Those curatives will be heard on their own merits whatever they may be. If the court decides to admit them, they will be re-opened.