Reports talk of grey areas but little to blacklist scientists

The two-member committee of B K Chaturvedi and Roddam Narasimha — which submitted its report before the other,led by former central vigilance commissioner Pratyush Sinha,was constituted — was,in fact,emphatic in debunking the theory that the deal involved any financial loss to the exchequer. “Charges regarding spectrum having been sold cheap under the agreement have no basis whatsoever. Space spectrum is not comparable to terrestrial spectrum… Space spectrum and terrestrial spectrum have to be considered and priced differently,” this committee said in its report.

It also put a stamp of approval on the procedure followed for arriving at the price of the spectrum,which was leased out to Devas for starting satellite-based delivery of multimedia and information to mobile receivers. “It is difficult to find fault with the procedure” that was followed,it said.

Devas Multimedia,a Bangalore-based firm,had entered into an agreement with ISRO in 2005 for such services. The company was given almost 90 per cent of transponder capacity on two satellites to be launched by ISRO — G-SAT6 and G-SAT6A — to tap the S-band frequencies. The deal found itself at the centre of a controversy early last year,following which the government appointed these two committees to look into the matter.

The two committees differed sharply on some key points. While a large part of the Chaturvedi committee report has been released,keeping out all the annexures and portions dealing with national security,only the conclusions of the Pratyush Sinha committee have been made public.:

* On K N Sankara: He is one of the four scientists blacklisted,who was responsible for finalising the agreement with Devas. The Sinha report indicted Sankara — former director of the ISRO Satellite Centre — saying “he went about his job with the clear intention of suggesting an arrangement that would be acceptable to Devas”.

The Chaturvedi Committee,on the other hand,lauded the role of the panel headed by Sankara for this purpose. “They made good recommendations which reduced the risk for Antrix/ISRO. These included the recommendation to move from joint-venture pattern to leasing of transponders. Technology and the patents and copyrights for technology were not very clear at that point of time and it was only appropriate that ISRO confines itself to leasing of transponders rather than getting involved in a full-fledged joint venture. In financial terms also,the original suggestion for $5 million upfront was improved to $20 million upfront and the annual fee for the lease period from $9 million to $11.25 million when Devas became cash positive,” the Chaturvedi committee said.

However,it mentioned “gaps” in some of the other recommendations. “One of them was the use of availability of frequency and possible alternative uses in the S-band.”

* Publicising spectrum availability: As reported by this newspaper on Sunday,the Sinha committee felt ISRO had not “adequately” publicised its intent of letting private players use its spectrum to provide satellite-based services. The Chaturvedi Committee,however,had acknowledged the constraints before ISRO.

Pointing out that the kind of services Devas was trying to launch through this agreement were available only in three other countries at the time – South Korea,Japan and the US — the Chaturvedi panel said: “Technology was still evolving in 2005. ISRO had to operate under technology control regimes imposed by the US… The likelihood of ISRO getting such technology from Japan appeared remote. Therefore,options open to ISRO were limited. Mobile satellite services had not been introduced in Europe. The committee appreciates ISRO efforts to meet these challenges at a time when there were major developments in offering satellite-based digital multimedia services.”

However,it says that the choice of Forge,USA (the parent company of Devas),was a “grey area”. “While there were no technologies available from other sources than Forge… it was not clear in what technologies Forge had access to full IPR. There was nothing on record to evaluate the IPR situation with respect to the technologies being discussed.”

* Conclusions: The five-member Sinha committee,of which ISRO chairman K Radhakrishan is a member,held the four scientists responsible for various acts of omission and commission. It also mentioned “collusive behaviour on part of certain individuals”.

The Chaturvedi committee,however,did not mention any acts of commission,only saying that the agreement with Devas had “several weaknesses” and “financial and strategic gaps”.

Based on the recommendations of these two reports,the government had through a January 13 order debarred along with Nair and Sankara former scientific secretary in ISRO A Bhaskaranarayana and former managing director of Antrix K R Sridhara Murthi from taking any government position in future and asked them to relieve any positions that they were occupying currently.

The Chaturvedi committee was constituted immediately after news of the Antrix-Devas deal became public early last year. It was asked to review the technical,commercial,procedural and financial aspects of the agreement,suggest corrective actions and fix responsibility for lapses,if any. It submitted its report on March 12 last year. Sometime later,the government constituted the Sinha committee to examine the decision-making process and seek explanations from people involved. This committee gave its report on September 2.