Jan 10, 2008
On this day, the Congress led UPA government demonstrated to the world how business is done in India. If business in India is a dance of cronyism, the Arangetram was of the allotment of precious 2G airwaves. Prices were fixed in blatant disregard for the exchequer and modalities were arbitrarily created throwing norms of equality to the winds. The simplicity and brazenness was remarkable. None of this happened on the sly – senior bureaucrats resigned, others wrote letters, the finance secretary protested, some media columnists screamed, all to no effect. The only two people who could rein in the determined Telecom minister kept quiet. Over the next few months the country watched helplessly. The signal to the foreign investor was clear, put your dancing shoes on – you need to do the three-step : a) arbitrariness and a certain masala flavour in policy environment b) gotta partner with middlemen who know to work with the arbitrariness (wink) c) rely on personal assurances more than due diligence and risk assessment.
We have been saying this for a long time. These three things must be smashed to pieces for true economic freedom to bloom.
Feb 2, 2012
The Supreme Court of India cancelled all 122 licenses awarded by the Congress led UPA government in 2008. The political economy that sets the three-step dance has been dealt a body blow. Lets take a look at the ramifications of this judgment.
When the news of the judgment was announced I was elated. I not only hoped for all 122 licenses to be cancelled but also for the court to lay down its standard of scrutiny. That is exactly what has happened.
The exercise undertaken by the officers of the DoT between September,2007 and March 2008, under the leadership of the then Minister of C&IT was wholly arbitrary, capricious and contrary to public interest apart from being violative of the doctrine of equality.
Policy must pass test
The illusion created by the media over the past two years is that policy is above scrutiny. We were told that the only way the nation can recover from a policy decision is by actually voting the government out. Once that happened we would hope the next government would remediate. So while we are challenged to sleuth around and find the hidden bribe money, we were told not to question the holders of the license because that is due to a policy decision. In fairness they do raise a valid question : Is the government of the day not allowed to make a wrong policy decision ? If the right decision could always be known at the time of its making, why even have any discretionary powers with the government ?
Here is the thing : There is a difference between a wrong policy decision and an arbitrary and capricious policy decision.
The way you tell the two apart is if the govt agency can provide evidence that its decision was taken after considering all aspects before it and whether due process was followed in allowing contrary evidence to be presented.
In the 2G case, the govt’s challenge was simply to show that the decision was a wrong one, an erroneous one, even a monumental blunder, but one that was made considering all viewpoints and information available at the time of taking that decision. If the government could show that all 122 licenses would have been saved. All the country would then get is a “oops sorry”.
Why did the government fail so miserably ? The attorney general made no effort to defend the policy in court, mostly pointing to the ongoing JPC and PAC committee probes. What evidence did they need to show ? This is the very heart of the matter. The judgment points to dozens of misdeeds of the ministers involved – but I think the following is the biggest.
They could not show that any authoritative study was done that would link the abrupt introduction of new players with cheap spectrum to increase in tele density and lower tariffs.
The present governor of RBI, Mr Subbarao has mentioned point blank to the PAC that no such noble goal (of rural tele density) was ever the driving factor, rather the agency kept making the level playing field argument between older and newer players. A lot of that seems to be oral and driven by whim and caprice. Not by deliberation and consideration of all relevant factors.
We all know this but let me show a factor that was never considered. It sounds seductive that you can give a 15,000 Cr chunk of air for 1,600 Cr to new players and they will pass on the savings in the form of cheap calls to rural and underprivileged folks. In reality what happens is your winners will use the headroom ( 15,000 – 1,600 Cr) to conduct private auctions with foreign players and realize their market value for themselves. In fact, as responsible corporates they owe it to their shareholders to do that. Water finds its own level. All the businessmen claim that they told the government that they are going to do exactly this. So it appears that this factor wasnt even considered against the lofty social goals.
I call the arbitrary and capricious test a baby test. “Just show us some evidence you considered all factors and you win“. The government could not even put it past this one. A stricter test called the substantial evidence test exists and even seems to be applied in the Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs Bombay Port Trust case which I found cited in the 2G judgment.
What about auction / FCFS
A lot of media folks jumped on to this observation :
In other words, while transferring or alienating the natural resources, the State is duty bound to adopt the method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the process.
Questions flew left and right. Can we give IIT seats on auction basis ? Can we auction water (a scarce natural resource) ? I say relax. The court is saying auction is the best way to prevent this kind of a nasty outcome.
If you, the state, prefers another method such as
- first come first served
- beauty contest (eg, an exam)
just be prepared to pass a judicial test of arbitrariness. In other words, make sure your papers are in order.
What about foreign partners
Tough luck for them, especially Telenor who seems to have been convinced that the only way to enter India is by this route. In the larger interest, they should name and shame the persons who gave them the confidence to invest such huge amounts in the middle of a raging controversy. It should be remembered that so far they are not party to any investigation, but if they get aggressive they might be dragged into it.
The whole thing is not pretty. India comes off as a country with a adhoc hotch-potch regulatory environment. One day they show us a magic rope trick – the next day they lay an advanced western concept of judicial scrutiny on us.
The UPA government is squarely responsible for this mess, yet it goes about its merry way as if nothing happened. In an ideal situation, a surge of free agent backlash would obliterate the party that did this crime to our economy and national prestige. But in that scenario, the scam itself would have never happened because the politicians would actually fear the ballot more than the court.