Pranab Mukherjee was aware of controversial 2G note, finmin officials tell JPC

NEW DELHI: Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee was aware of the contents of the controversial March 25, 2011 2G note which suggested P Chidambaram could have prevented the scam by insisting on auctions, a top ministry official told the Joint Parliamentary Committee on telecom on Thursday. 

Department of economic affairs secretary R Gopalan agreed that the meaning of the noting "seen" by the minister meant that Mukherjee was aware of the note although he may not have approved it, JPC chairperson P C Chacko said after the committee's meeting. "We sought this clarification," Chacko told TOI.  Gopalan's offered his explanation as finance ministry officials were grilled by opposition members over when and under what circumstances did the finance ministry under P Chidambaram during UPA-1 drop its insistence on revising entry level prices for 2G spectrum.  Gopalan and finance secretary R S Gujral were subjected to intense questioning on the March 25, 2011 note that cast Chidambaram in poor light by BJP's S S Ahluwalia who presented documents including a key January 5, 2011 telecom note to the cabinet secretariat stating the need for a "harmonized" version of events in the light of media reports. BJP's Yashwant Sinha said the finance ministry could not shy away from its ownership of the note.  The trigger, Ahluwalia contended, was not media reports but the need to respond to the Public Accounts Committee probing the damaging audit report on 2G licences. In this context, references to Chidambaram were deliberate and Ahluwalia asked officials whether it was normal practice for finance ministry to coordinate a note that should have been the telecom ministry's domain.  The telltale evidence, Ahluwalia said, lay in a finance ministry note of March 23 that said certain documents collated were at variance to what had been submitted to the PAC and CAG earlier. The PMO remained in the picture as the then principal secretary to PM was noted to have inquired whether replies were sent to PAC.  Congress members interrupted Ahluwalia at one point leading to strong protests by Sinha. Although Congress members did not intervene much, party MP Manish Tewari sought two hours to pose questions to the officials at a later date.  Sinha asked officials why the finance ministry dropped its guard not only on revision of 2001 entry prices for licences issued in 2008 but also its case for charging for spectrum embedded with licences and additional airwaves beyond 4.4 Mhz.  Sinha said the ministry's objectives were to try and maximize the government's earnings and ensure that pricing was decided jointly by finance and telecom ministry. It failed to do either. "At what level was the decision taken not to pursue these aims," Sinha is understood to have asked.  MPs insisted that the finance ministry could not wash its hands off the note even though it bore the PMO's scrutiny as it was issued by the ministry. A draft of the March 25 note was sent to PMO on January 18 and its final form was not a factual account but "bristled with conclusions" on Chidambaram's possible role in preventing the licence disbursal.  At one stage then, finance secretary Ashok Chawla notes that the principal secretary to PM has sought to know the status of the communication. Cabinet secretariat also notes the PMO's interest.  Some political quarters felt that the March 25, 2011 note reflected the PMO's need to "set the record straight" after media reports surfaced on Chidambaram having written to the PM supporting auctions. The controversial note saw Mukherjee distancing himself from its compilation and in a stroke turning the focus on Chidambaram and PMO. Mukherjee argued in a letter to the PM that the note had been prepared only because the PMO pressed for such a course of action.