Telecom scams in India are old hat. It has been happening ever since the telecom sector was opened to private participation over 10 years ago. The scams have taken place both during Congress as well as BJP rule. More importantly, the BJP who is now crying hoarse, did not allow Parliament to function for a considerable period of time during the Sukh Ram scam, However it had no compunctions when it embraced the scamster (Sukh Ram) when it suited its interest. So much for standing for probity in public life!!!
Scams will come to an end only when the guilty are prosecuted and punished and their ill-gotten gains are confiscated. Till then it will only make media headlines and increase TRP ratings of TV channels. Here are some excerpts of past telecom scams: ‘Former communications minister Sukh Ram has been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and fined Rs 1 lakh by a CBI special court here for indulging in corruption by favouring a private party at the cost of Rs 1.68 crore to the public exchequer. ‘ Read more: Sukhram convicted in telecom scam - The Times of India<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sukhram-convicted-in-telecom-scam/articleshow/15046155.cms#ixzz164wmKhZU> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sukhram-convicted-in-telecom-scam/articleshow/15046155.cms#ixzz164wmKhZU http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sukhram-convicted-in-telecom-scam/articleshow/15046155.cms Excerpts: ‘Sukh Ram was thrown out of both the Congress government and party but he quickly picked up the threads again. He floated the Himachal Vikas Congress and won the February 1998 assembly elections from Mandi with a thumping margin, bagging 64.63 per cent of the vote against 16.79 per cent secured by his nearest rival. With the Congress and BJP evenly poised, the HVC became Kingmaker. Sukh Ram joined hands with the BJP, the party that had stalled Parliament over his role in the telecom scam about two years earlier. He was de facto deputy chief minister in the BJP-HVC government.’ http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/6118/ Excerpts: ‘The petition alleged that RIC advertised the service as a full mobility service, and could give a plethora of incentives to the subscribers because it did not pay the licence fees chargeable from a fully mobile service provider. The petition further alleged that it was only because of this that RIC could get five million subscribers, which was hundreds of times more than it could have got as limited mobile operators. "Reliance valuations thus shot up to thousands of crores, something its competitors could not dream of while offering limited mobility in the same circles," it said. *The petition estimated that this caused a loss of Rs.1,100 crores to the exchequer**,* on the basis of the difference in the licence fee payable to the government by a fully mobile service provider and a WLL service provider. RIC became the fifth fully mobile service provider, having entered the scene through the WLL route, whereas the earlier four players had paid the licence fee applicable to a fully mobile service provider. RIC merger of the WLL licence and full mobility was done during the tenure of Mahajan's successor in the Communications Ministry, Arun Shourie. The justification given for this before the Supreme Court was that lakhs of subscribers had already been enrolled by RIC on the promise of full mobility. Thus the illegality allowed during Mahajan's tenure was itself subsequently used as a justification for legalising it. This benefited RIC to the tune of hundreds of crores of rupees, the petition said. In its press release dated February 15, 2005, RIC admitted that it had allotted one crore shares to Ashish Deora, through three front companies, at Re.1 each on September 16, 2002. It stated that the shares given to Deora were from "shares that were transferred to a trust, intended for the benefit of Reliance employees and business associates". Since the trust was authorised to sell their shares to business associates, RIC paid him remuneration for services rendered to the company through such a transfer. RIC claimed that the trust had retained the option to buy back the shares at par, and barred Deora to sell/pledge/deal with the shares. Since Deora was not able to fulfil his commitments, the shares were returned to the trust, RIC added. The petition raises a number of doubts about this transaction. It points out that Reliance Industries paid Rs.55 a share to buy 32 crore shares in RIC for Rs.1,752 crores within six weeks of the transfer at Re.1 a share. The allotment of cheap shares to private companies at Re.1 in contrast to the amount paid by the public listed company Reliance Industries was a matter of public concern, the petition said. The petition cites a series of stories carried in *Asian Age*, exposing the transfer of one crore shares to three front companies at Re.1 each by RIC on September 16, 2002. It was subsequently reported in the newspaper, after an investigation, that these front companies did not exist at the addresses given in the records. These were financed by 10 equally obscure Delhi-based companies, of which details of only six were available to the press. All six had a common address, which was used by a chartered accountant close to Mahajan. CITING newspaper reports, the petition suggested that there were several close connections (financial and otherwise) between the Mahajan family and Deora. The petition cites the fact that Indian Online Network Ltd (IOL) Broadband, a company in which Deora is the director, bailed out Integral Production Private Limited (IPPL), a company owned by the wife and son of Mahajan, by paying off Rs.5 crores due from IPPL to Prasar Bharati. The payment was necessitated by the institution of a public interest petition in January 2001, wherein it was alleged that Mahajan had doled out favours to IPPL through Prasar Bharati when he was the Minister for Information and Broadcasting. It was alleged that IPPL owed Rs.6.5 crores to Prasar Bharati as the firm failed to pay the minimum guarantee of Rs.3.5 lakhs an episode produced by the firm and telecast on Doordarshan. Deora was also a co-founder of IOL with Mahajan's son-in-law. *Gravely concerned about the serious illegality and corruption involved in the case, as well as the lack of action by the authorities concerned, the Citizens Forum Against Corruption, through one of its eminent members, Prashant Bhushan, an advocate in the Supreme Court, requested the CVC, the CBI and the Prime Minister, through separate letters, to initiate criminal investigations against the persons concerned. The Forum approached the Supreme Court after its reminder-letters to these authorities failed to get any response.’* *The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) too acknowledged to Frontline the receipt of the complaint sent by the Forum on May 18, 2005. It was duly sent to the Anti-Corruption Unit of the Grievance Redressal Cell of the PMO, where it has been gathering dust. **‘* *http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127004603000.htm*