The Supreme Court on 24.08.2012:
"52. Criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred on the mere fact that there
were official discussions between the officers of the MoF and that of DoT
and between two Ministers, which are all recorded. Suspicion, however,
strong, cannot take the place of legal proof and the meeting between Shri
P. Chidambaram and Shri A. Raja would not by itself be sufficient to infer
the existence of a criminal conspiracy so as to indict Shri P. Chidambaram.
Petitioners submit that had the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister
intervened, this situation could have been avoided, might be or might not
be. A wrong judgment or an inaccurate or incorrect approach or poor
management by itself, even after due deliberations between Ministers or
even with Prime Minister, by itself cannot be said to be a product of
criminal conspiracy.
53. We are of the considered view that materials on record do not show
that Shri P. Chidambaram had abused his position as a Minister of Finance
or conspired or colluded with A. Raja so as to fix low entry fee by non-
visiting spectrum charges fixed in the year 2001. No materials are also
made available even for a prima facie conclusion that Shri P. Chidambaram
had deliberately allowed dilution of equity of the two companies, i.e. Swan
and Unitech. No materials is also available even prima facie to conclude
that Shri P. Chidambaram had abused his official position, or used any
corrupt or illegal means for obtaining any pecuniary advantage for himself
or any other persons, including Shri A. Raja.
54. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that no case is made out
to interfere with the order dated 4.2.2012 in C.C. No. 01 (A) / 11 passed
by Special Judge CBI (04) (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi or to grant
reliefs prayed for in I.A. No. 34 of 2012. Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No. 1688 of 2012 is, therefore, not entertained, so also I.A. No. 34 of
2012 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 and they are accordingly stand
rejected."
