Official consultations do not prove conspiracy or corruption absent prima facie evidence of abuse of office and pecuniary advantage.

Official consultations and inter-departmental discussions between ministers did not, on the record, establish a prima facie criminal conspiracy in spectrum pricing and licence issuance. The materials also failed to show abuse of office, use of corrupt or illegal means, or procurement of any pecuniary advantage for the Finance Minister or others; the alleged equity dilution by licensees was not directly or deliberately linked to him. On that evidentiary basis, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not satisfied, and no further investigation or addition of the Finance Minister as an accused was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the materials disclosed a prima facie case that the then Finance Minister conspired with the Telecom Minister in fixing spectrum price and issuing licences; (ii) whether the materials showed that he obtained, by corrupt or illegal means, any pecuniary advantage for himself or others or deliberately enabled dilution of equity by the licensees; (iii) whether the facts attracted Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and justified directing further investigation or arraying him as an accused.

Issue (i): whether the materials disclosed a prima facie case that the then Finance Minister conspired with the Telecom Minister in fixing spectrum price and issuing licences.

Analysis: The record showed that the Ministry of Finance had raised objections, suggested auction-based pricing and sought discussion on spectrum valuation, while the Telecom Department and its minister had already proceeded on their own policy decisions. The meetings and communications between the two ministries and the ministers were on record, but the Court held that such official consultations and inter-departmental discussions, without more, did not establish a criminal agreement. Mere suspicion, however strong, could not substitute for legal proof of conspiracy.

Conclusion: No prima facie case of criminal conspiracy was made out against the then Finance Minister.

Issue (ii): whether the materials showed that he obtained, by corrupt or illegal means, any pecuniary advantage for himself or others or deliberately enabled dilution of equity by the licensees.

Analysis: The materials did not show that he abused his position, used corrupt or illegal means, or secured any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. The alleged dilution of equity by the private licensees occurred after licence grant, and the record did not establish that he played a direct or deliberate role in that process. The Court found no prima facie basis to attribute those consequences to him.

Conclusion: The allegations of corrupt gain, abuse of office, and deliberate facilitation of equity dilution were not made out.

Issue (iii): whether the facts attracted Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and justified directing further investigation or arraying him as an accused.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory ingredients and the evidentiary record and concluded that the materials fell short of the threshold required to proceed against him. The contemporaneous notes and exchanges showed a policy disagreement on pricing and allocation methodology, not a demonstrated criminal design. In the absence of prima facie evidence satisfying the ingredients of the offence, no further investigative direction or addition of the Finance Minister as an accused was warranted.

Conclusion: Section 13(1)(d) was not attracted on the materials before the Court, and no direction for further investigation or impleadment as accused was justified.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the Special Judge's order and refused the requested reliefs, holding that the record did not disclose a prima facie case against the then Finance Minister.

Ratio Decidendi: Official consultations and policy disagreements, even when recorded between ministers and departments, do not establish criminal conspiracy or corruption unless the materials disclose a prima facie nexus showing abuse of office, corrupt or illegal means, or procurement of pecuniary advantage.

---