On Could 19, 2025, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed petitions filed by Vodafone Thought, Bharti Airtel, and the Tata Group beneath Article 32, which sought waivers on AGR curiosity and penalties. The court docket reaffirmed that the matter had been conclusively settled by means of its 2019 ruling and subsequent evaluate petitions, stating, “Will probably be a really unhappy day if the best Courtroom of this Nation begins entertaining Article 32 writ petitions on the identical material after the healing petitions are dismissed.”
Regardless of this, throughout a June 2 earnings name, Vodafone Thought CEO Akshaya Moondra said that the corporate stays engaged with the Union authorities to hunt a decision.
“So far as the federal government reduction is anxious, I believe we’re engaged with the federal government… What the federal government will do, I can not touch upon their behalf. However undoubtedly submit the judgment, we proceed with our engagement with the federal government to discover a answer to the AGR matter,” he mentioned.
Authorized specialists swiftly denounced the assertion, arguing that it misrepresented the court docket’s place. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai just lately cautioned in opposition to the distortion of judicial remarks, emphasizing that such misinterpretations may negatively affect public notion.
Advocate Gaurav Gupta, who has appeared in a number of civil circumstances, said that the Supreme Courtroom’s Could 19 order reaffirmed the finality of AGR dues. He burdened that any future authorities intervention or govt reduction altering the quantum or finality of AGR dues was now precluded by the court docket’s choice. Notably, the court docket labeled Vodafone Thought’s writ petition as “misconceived,” making the CEO’s remarks about authorities involvement legally unfounded.
Advocate Ashish Dixit emphasised that the petition beneath Article 32 was “misconceived,” questioning the rationale behind submitting it regardless of the Supreme Courtroom having already adjudicated the problem as much as the healing stage. “As soon as a difficulty is determined by the best court docket, the choices for each the corporate and authorities are restricted, as the chief can not override the legislation established by the Supreme Courtroom,” he mentioned.
Advocate Mohit Paul, an Advocate-on-Document on the Supreme Courtroom, highlighted the continued dispute surrounding AGR–the yardstick for license charges and spectrum-usage fees. The matter was definitively settled by the Supreme Courtroom in October 2019, ruling that AGR contains all types of income–telecom or otherwise–and that operators are required to pay roughly Rs1.56 trillion, together with curiosity and penalties.
Following years of authorized battles–including failed evaluate petitions in 2020 and healing petitions dismissed in September 2024–the telcos made one more try by submitting Article 32 writs in Could 2025, looking for a waiver value roughly Rs80,000 crore. Nevertheless, the Supreme Courtroom firmly rejected these petitions, remarking that reopening the problem could be “a really unhappy day,” reiterating its perception that the writ petitions have been “misconceived.”
Throughout the listening to, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Thought, conceded that every one authorized avenues–including evaluate and healing petitions–had been exhausted. He urged the court docket to permit the federal government to evaluate the corporate’s illustration.
The bench responded: “If the federal government desires that will help you, we aren’t coming in the way in which; who’s stopping them from taking a look on the illustration?”
Nevertheless, Rohatgi knowledgeable the court docket that the federal government had declined to think about the request, citing the binding nature of the AGR ruling.
The Solicitor Normal confirmed that the chief was restricted from intervening on account of prior Supreme Courtroom selections. The bench concluded: “In the event you can not study it, we additionally can not study it now.”
Rohatgi’s subsequent plea to withdraw the petition was denied, alongside along with his request to insert an announcement permitting petitioners to strategy the federal government. The court docket remarked, “Every little thing has its personal limits.”
I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.