He told Special CBI Judge O.P. Saini that the CBI is investigating the Aircel-Maxis deal but he wants to file an additional complaint in the case over which he had earlier levelled allegations against Home Minister P Chidambaram.
CBI is probing the alleged role of former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran in the Aircel-Maxis deal. The Court posted hearing in the case for August 25.
Mr. Swamy had earlier told the Supreme Court, which is hearing the case, that the CBI probe into the Aircel-Maxis deal was focused only on Mr. Maran’s role in arm-twisting Aircel’s owner to sell his stake to the Malaysian firm Maxis.
“My matter is partially different from the CBI’s case. In the Aircel-Maxis matter, there is a separate FIR by the CBI. The Supreme Court has said that scope of the probe should be widened…I wish to file an additional complaint case before this court,” Mr. Swamy told the court.
When the judge said anyone can file a private complaint, Mr. Swamy said “there is something related to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB)”. As Finance Minister between 2004 and 2008, Mr. Chidambaram had headed FIPB as Chairman.
Mr. Swamy, who was to argue on his plea levelling some fresh allegations against former Telecom Minister A Raja in the 2G case, today sought adjournment in the matter saying that order on his plea is pending in the apex court.
“On February 4, 2012, you (judge) had passed an order and, partially aggrieved by it, I had moved the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has reserved its order on my plea. I am seeking adjournment,” Mr. Swamy said.
Mr. Chidambaram and the Union Government have denied all the allegations made by Mr. Swamy.
The special judge, in his February 4 order, had dismissed Mr. Swamy petition seeking to make Chidambaram a co-accused in the 2G spectrum case saying he did not indulge in any criminal conspiracy or derived any pecuniary advantage in the decisions taken with Mr. Raja.
Giving a clean chit to Mr. Chidambaram, who was the finance minister during the controversial allocation of 2G spectrum in 2008, the court had said he was party to only two decisions — keeping spectrum prices at 2001 level and dilution of equity by two companies and they “are not per se criminal” offence.
The court had said there was no evidence on record to suggest that there was an agreement between Mr. Chidambaram and Mr. Raja to subvert telecom policy and obtain pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.