Vodafone Idea CEO's AGR remarks triggers debate on Supreme Court's final ruling
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Idea, conceded that all legal avenues--including review and curative petitions--had been exhausted.
ANI
Jun 05, 2025 20:16 IST
New Delhi [India], June 5 (ANI): On May 19, 2025, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel, and the Tata Group under Article 32, which sought waivers on AGR interest and penalties.
The court reaffirmed that the matter had been conclusively settled through its 2019 ruling and subsequent review petitions, stating, "It will be a very sad day if the highest Court of this Country starts entertaining Article 32 writ petitions on the same subject matter after the curative petitions are dismissed."
Despite this, during a June 2 earnings call, Vodafone Idea CEO Akshaya Moondra stated that the company remains engaged with the Union government to seek a resolution.
"As far as the government relief is concerned, I think we are engaged with the government... What the government will do, I cannot comment on their behalf. But definitely post the judgment, we continue with our engagement with the government to find a solution to the AGR matter," he said.
Legal experts swiftly denounced the statement, arguing that it misrepresented the court's position. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai recently cautioned against the distortion of judicial remarks, emphasizing that such misinterpretations could negatively influence public perception.
Advocate Gaurav Gupta, who has appeared in multiple civil cases, stated that the Supreme Court's May 19 order reaffirmed the finality of AGR dues. He stressed that any future government intervention or executive relief altering the quantum or finality of AGR dues was now precluded by the court's decision. Notably, the court labeled Vodafone Idea's writ petition as "misconceived," making the CEO's remarks about government involvement legally unfounded.
Advocate Ashish Dixit emphasized that the petition under Article 32 was "misconceived," questioning the rationale behind filing it despite the Supreme Court having already adjudicated the issue up to the curative stage. "Once an issue is decided by the highest court, the options for both the company and government are limited, as the executive cannot override the law established by the Supreme Court," he said.
Advocate Mohit Paul, an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court, highlighted the ongoing dispute surrounding AGR--the yardstick for license fees and spectrum-usage charges. The matter was definitively settled by the Supreme Court in October 2019, ruling that AGR includes all forms of income--telecom or otherwise--and that operators are required to pay approximately Rs1.56 trillion, including interest and penalties.
Following years of legal battles--including failed review petitions in 2020 and curative petitions dismissed in September 2024--the telcos made yet another attempt by filing Article 32 writs in May 2025, seeking a waiver worth roughly Rs80,000 crore. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected these petitions, remarking that reopening the issue would be "a very sad day," reiterating its belief that the writ petitions were "misconceived."
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Idea, conceded that all legal avenues--including review and curative petitions--had been exhausted. He urged the court to allow the government to assess the company's representation.
The bench responded: "If the government wants to help you, we are not coming in the way; who is stopping them from having a look at the representation?"
However, Rohatgi informed the court that the government had declined to consider the request, citing the binding nature of the AGR ruling.
The Solicitor General confirmed that the executive was restricted from intervening due to prior Supreme Court decisions. The bench concluded: "If you cannot examine it, we also cannot examine it now."
Rohatgi's subsequent plea to withdraw the petition was denied, along with his request to insert a statement allowing petitioners to approach the government. The court remarked, "Everything has its own limits." (ANI)
Get the App
