The Supreme Court on Monday hear several issues related to the 2G scam including a plea to expand the scope of CBI investigation into allocation of spectrum prior to 2001 and on contempt proceedings against Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy for allegedly interfering with the probe.

A bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly will hear an NGO''s application seeking a direction to the CBI to register a case and investigate into the various illegalities and irregularities in the telecom sector that took place prior to 2001, which have been specifically highlighted in the CAG report of 2000.

The application filed by NGO 'Citizens Grievances Redressal Foundation', which is being represented by senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, submitted that the CAG report of 2000 will show that some of existing operators like Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea were major beneficiaries of migration from fixed licence fee to revenue sharing regime.

The bench will also peruse the response of Roy against whom it found prima facie ground for initiating suo motu contempt proceedings for allegedly interfering with the probe in the 2G spectrum case.

The court on May 5 had said there was a prima facie case against Roy and two journalists-- Upendra Rai and Subodh Jain -- of Sahara India News Network and directed them to respond to the notices within six weeks.

The bench took serious note of the fact that after summons were issued to the CMD of Sahara group under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act from February 2 onwards, "crude methods" were adopted to terrorise, intimidate and blackmail ED's Assistant Director Rajeshwar Singh, who is the investigating officer in the 2G spectrum case.

The bench had also banned Sahara India News Network and its sister concerns from publishing and broadcasting any story or programme relating to Singh.

The court was anguished that after summons were issued asking Roy to appear before the ED with documents relating to some transactions including to Chennai-based S-Tel which has come under CBI scanner, Rai and Jain became active in interfering with the course of investigation.

Singh, who filed the petition in his personal capacity, claimed that Jain sent him 25 questions relating to him and his families assets, contacts and others and threatened to start a campaign against him by publishing and broadcasting series of stories.