The charge-sheet filed by CBI in the country’s most high profile case has raised doubts over the authenticity of the investigations.

There were a number of telecom operators who received the UASL in 2008 by A Raja, who was the issuing authority at that time. Putting A Raja behind bars for wrongly granting the licenses to these companies reflect that the procedure followed for issuing licenses was allegedly wrong. In this case, all the telecom operators, namely Datacom, Loop, Unitech Wireless, Shyam Sistema, Swan and Allianz Infra, would have got licenses through the incorrect procedure. Then why only Unitech and Swan (along with ADAG for its link to Swan) named in the charge sheet. How come the same procedure was found right for the other companies and wrong for only these ones.

Also, the charge sheet names Sanjay Chandra and Vinod Goenka of the Unitech Wireless and Swan respectively but nowhere mentions Anil Ambani of ADAG. Now if Anil Ambali is the promoter of ADAG, then so are Sanjay Chandra and Vinod Goenda of their respective companies. The reason for this special treatment extended to Anil Ambani remains unknown. Maybe it’s to protect the most high profile that the others are being put to test.

Furthermore, things happening at the Tata’s end raise lot of doubts, that too with the claims of Ratan Tata that his Group’s business is not based on bribes & corruption. A land worth Rs 250 Crs given to DMK by Voltas (a Tata company) for only Rs 25 Crs, and the Rs 750 Crs VSNL land going to the Tata’s as part of the VSNL disinvestment makes one wonder what’s transpiring behind the scene.

Unfair, isn’t it. The country wants the guilty to be booked and can’t let the CBI protect a certain set of people while nailing the other set. What makes them hand-pick only few? Are Ambani or Tata names too big to be touched by the CBI. What’s the guarantee that the naming of Sanjay Chandra or Vinod Goenka in the charge-sheet has creditable ground. Many things go unexplained. Questions unanswered.