NEW DELHI: A former minister of state in the UPA government on Monday accused the Supreme Court of being unusually lenient towards ex-PM Manmohan Singh in staying a trial court order summoning him as an accused in the Talabira-II coal block allocation to Hindalco.

Santosh Bagrodia, who as MoS reported to Singh who was also in-charge of the coal ministry, told a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A K Sikri that in irregular allotment of coal blocks cases, he was on a stronger legal wicket compared to Singh in terms of alleged criminality yet was being denied relief.

Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Bagrodia, said his client was a mere post-office in the process of allocation of coal blocks and had forwarded recommendations made by the PM or the PMO to authorities concerned.

For such a role, where there was no criminality or quid pro quo for allocation, Bagrodia was summoned as an accused to face trial despite the CBI filing a closure report, he said. The case related to allocation of coal block to AMR Iron and Steel Private Limited, its directors Manoj Jayaswal and Devendra Darda for cheating and criminal conspiracy.

“This places me on a much better footing to be entitled to relief from the Supreme Court, which has already stayed the trial court order summoning Singh as an accused. Why am I being asked to face trial when Singh is not? Am I not entitled to non-discrimination? Admit my appeal and give me relief similar to Singh,” Bagrodia said through his counsel.

The SC had stayed proceedings against Singh after he challenged the summons and the constitutional validity of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Bagrodia has moved a petition pleading identical grounds to seek similar relief.

Appearing for the CBI, senior advocate Amarendra Saran and advocate Amit Anand Tiwari attempted to show from the records that Bagrodia’s case stood on a footing very different from Singh’s. “The trial court has specifically recorded criminal intention behind the alleged role played by Bagrodia in allocation of a coal block to a company,” Saran said.

But Bagrodia’s counsel presented a note comparing his role with Singh’s in the alleged irregular allotment of coal blocks. The note was a contrast between the alleged roles of Singh and Bagrodia.

It said there were repeated letters from Kumar Mangalam Birla of Hindalco to Singh. This was followed by meetings between Birla and Singh and subsequent “repeated reminders, both written and telephonic’” from the PM to the coal ministry to expedite the allocation process.

Bagrodia said the charge against Singh was that he had allegedly ordered allocation of coal blocks in deviation from the guidelines and had intervened “at the stage of allocation overruling recommendations of screening committee by arbitrarily ignoring bureaucratic advice”.

As against these charges, the only charge against him was that he had relied on bureaucratic advice, the note said. “Manmohan Singh was the ‘minister-in-charge’, with decision-making power within the coal ministry whereas he (Bagrodia), as minister of state, did not enjoy statutory delegation to take decisions qua allocation or cancellation thereof,” Bagrodia said.

Venugopal said 75-year-old Bagrodia was damned in public by the trial court order summoning him as an accused without any substance in the charges relating to irregular allotment of coal blocks and pleaded for grant of exemption from personal appearance before the trial court.

The SC asked Bagrodia to apply for exemption in the trial court. It said it would also like to hear special public prosecutor R S Cheema and adjourned hearing on his petition to October 29.