New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled all the 122 2G spectrum licences issued during the tenure of former telecom minister A Raja. The apex court also had words of appreciation for Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy. Speaking to CNN-IBN after the court verdict, Swamy said that he would now argue before the trial court to make then finance minister P Chidambaram a co-accused in the case. Veeraraghav: Joining us this evening is a man who started it at all in more then one sense of the way, Mr Subramaniyan Swamy president of Janta Party. The prime litigate in the Supreme Court on the 2G. Sir appreciate your joining us. You argue that it’s a victory and indictment of the government. But the government’s counter argument is that it is the indictment of policy that existed even before they came to power. The Telecom Minister had ignored the advice of the Finance Ministry. So how can you argue that the entire Cabinet has been indicted by this order? Subramanian Swamy: Mr Kabil Sibal seems to be suffering from some kind of dementia, because where it is said in the order, I have read the order. When he was speaking to the press, the order wasn’t even ready because Justice Ganguly had not signed it. And when I got to read the order late this evening, there was no reference what so every to the Finance Ministry being exonerated on this. In fact all the reference there is, is the CBI council Mr Venugopal claming it to be so, which has been reproduced that doesn’t make it a court decision. Moreover, the fact of matter is that the Finance Minister and my prayer for CBI inquiry, had by the time I had made so much advance in the trial court had become infatuates. If supposing the Supreme Court had decided that the CBI should investigate Mr Chidambaram, what would had happened to my court case which is in the trial court where the order has to be reserved. Veeraraghav: If that point is taken, the final word then rests with Justice O P Saini, in front of who you are arguing for proceedings against P Chidambaram. How you can assume that this verdict predetermines that? Subramanian Swamy: I never said it predetermines, in fact the judges have been very very sage and very smart. They have recorded all that I have said and then they have said, but how was since Mr Swamy had preceded quit distance in the trial court, we empower the trial court to decide this matter. Now I think the trial court is now only going to consider when the Mr Chidambaram should be made a co-accused or not. The question of CBI inquiry is no more relevant, it is because I have already done the inquiry and given the prima facie evidence. All that can happen is, I can now ask the trial court which I couldn’t ask before. Because the Supreme Court order was there, that only the High Court and the Supreme Court can order the CBI to do an investigation. Now that the trial court is empowered as we say, once Mr Chidambaram is made the co-accused that the future to conduct the case, I need the CBI assistance because they are sitting on all the files. So the CBI must cooperate with me that’s now Mr Saini is empowered to do. Veeraraghav: That’s an argument you will forward in front of the trial court as expected. But sticking with the judgement today, one of the arguments that’s put forwards is that it’s an indictment of policy and not criminality of any individual. Subramanian Swamy: Well first of all the question of criminality has to be decided by the trial court. It can’t be decided by the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court has said that the policy was wrong and the first come, first serve policy was done on a flawed basis and therefore we are cancelling the license. We are not going to expect this kind of money power giving an open chit, therefore, I think the Supreme Court has done the maximum it can do under these circumstances. As far as the criminality is concerned, whether question is who is guilty or who is not that can be decide in the trial court. It can’t be decided in the Supreme Court. Veeraraghav: And hence would you agree that in a sense, the status quo as far as your petition on Chidambaram continues till the trial court disposes the matter? Subramanian Swamy: There is no question of status quo, there is no need for a CBI inquiry. When I ask for a CBI inquiry there was no proceeding in the trial court for me and then after the reservation and delivery of the order, there has been substantial time. I went to the trial court because I had come in to a lot of materials, I presented in the trial court and it heard it and they reserved orders. Now the question is, if there was no evidence in what I had said, the court would have held that we found no material against Mr Chidambaram because that was the prayer of Mr Chidambaram’s lawyer and the prayer of the CBI as well. And the court said absolutely nothing in a fact it is defacto to say that Mr Chidambaram cannot be given a clean chit, that is also BJP is arguing and is correctly arguing, that Mr Chidambaram if he has any morality he should resign now. Veeraraghav: Two different interpretations being made, one from the government, since it is not said anything, we will wait till the trial court something said on this matter. You are arguing since it hasn’t given a clean chit, on the ground of morality he should step down. But just shifting focus to another of the arguments that have been forwarded by those councils of the accused in 2G case. I am just going to read on today’s judgment it says ‘the Ministers of Communication and information technology and officers of the DOT who virtually gifted away the important national assets at throwaway prices’. They argue that this kind of the a judgment pre determines their guilt even the trial goes on. Would you believe that’s unfounded? Subramanian Swamy: Well they should go and consult Mr Sibal because Mr Sibal says that nobody has found guilty. Veeraraghav: Mr Sibal’s argument is that implementations, it stops with A Raja, the policy was flawed. Would you then agree that from 2001, from NTP 1999, whichever government implemented the policy, if it’s been indicted in a court of law, should now be looked at as people who cost lost to the exchequer. It doesn’t just end with the UPA? Subramanian Swamy: I have said from day one that the government will not file a case against itself. Therefore I as a public person have a duty to prosecute them, but as far as prosecuting the Opposition is concerned, there is nothing to have stopped the UPA government so far in prosecuting the NDA. They never did it and therefore obviously they must have reviewed the matter and come to a conclusion that there is no substance in it, there is no strength in it, and that’s why they didn’t prosecute anyone from the NDA. Otherwise they should have done it was their job, they have the CBI they have ED, they have everybody, whereas we as citizens have to rely on our own strength. And we have come this far to show that this government has been so corrupt that the licences had to be cancelled today by the Supreme Court. Veeraraghav: Despite the power of today’s judgment cancelling 122 licences, the question still remains Dr Swamy, on whether the 2G case will go beyond the accuse who are being tried right now or will it end there. And that would perhaps be determined by Mr OP Saini at the trail court. Appreciate your joining us this evening Mr Subramaniyan Swamy.