New Delhi (Agency): India’s Supreme Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that called for overturning the government’s decision to provide relief to struggling telecom companies. The decision came as a relief to telecom service providers, who owe massive Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) related dues to the government.
Previously, in September 2020, the court had granted these companies a 10-year window to pay their outstanding AGR dues. Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that while the court had issued guidelines concerning the telecom sector, the COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges that necessitated policy changes.
According to the court, “these are all matters of policy and decision-making” guided by experts. Such decisions are made “in the interest of the welfare of the people of India” and have serious financial and technical implications. The court further stated that these decisions should not be easily interfered with unless they are proven to be “unconstitutional or arbitrary in nature or contrary to law.”
The court found the PIL filed by petitioner Anshul Gupta to be without merit, stating that interference at this stage could create uncertainty and jeopardize the implementation of the government’s policy.
The Justices pointed out the increasing reliance on telecom services due to pandemic-induced lockdowns, online education, and remote work. They said that this dependency underscores the need for a robust telecom sector. “Huge investments were made for the establishment and expansion of infrastructure… the governments, courts, education system, and corporate sector depended heavily on the telecom sector,” the bench noted.
In 2021, the Union Cabinet had approved a relief package for the telecom sector, which included a four-year break for companies from paying statutory dues and permission to share airwaves. The measures were designed to aid companies like Vodafone Idea, which faces enormous unprovisioned past dues.
The court concluded that in light of the emerging needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would not be justified to interfere with the Cabinet’s well-calibrated decision. The ruling thereby reaffirms the executive branch’s authority in policymaking, especially when driven by experts and emerging circumstances.
