The Supreme Court dismissed writ petitions by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel, and Tata Teleservices seeking waiver of interest, penalty, and interest on penalty on AGR dues. The Court held that such relief cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction, especially when the issue stands settled by prior judgments, and criticised the telecom giants for raising legally untenable claims.
The petitions pertained to the longstanding AGR liability dispute rooted in the National Telecom Policy of 1999, which introduced a revenue-sharing mechanism for telecom service providers. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) had interpreted AGR to include both telecom and non-telecom revenues, such as those from interest, rent, and asset sales. Telecom operators had, however, contended that only revenue derived from core telecom operations should form the basis of AGR.
This led to a prolonged legal battle beginning in 2002, with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) initially ruling in favour of the telecom companies. However, the Supreme Court's landmark judgment dated October 24, 2019, upheld DoT's broader interpretation, thereby escalating the financial liabilities of the telecom operators significantly. Following this, the DoT raised demands amounting to Rs. 1.19 lakh crore in total dues, Rs. 58,254 crore for Vodafone Idea, Rs. 43,989 crore for Bharti Airtel, and Rs. 16,798 crore for Tata Teleservices.
In the present petitions, Vodafone Idea submitted that while it did not challenge the 2019 judgment on AGR, it sought relief from the excessive burden arising out of interest and penalties, which constituted a major share of its liabilities. It argued that it was facing a dire financial crisis, with annual operational cash flow of merely Rs. 9,200 crore as against the yearly AGR obligation of approximately Rs. 18,000 crore. The petitioner further asserted that the relief sought was essential for its survival, market competition, and consumer interests, especially since the Union of India currently holds a 48.99% equity stake in the company.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Vodafone Idea, requested adjournment to explore possible negotiations with the government. However, the Court declined to defer the matter, observing that there was no merit in the petition itself.
The company also relied on the Government's 2021 Telecom Relief Package, which introduced a moratorium on dues, recalibrated the AGR definition, and reduced penalty rates, thereby acknowledging the industry's financial distress. Furthermore, in a representation dated April 17, 2025, Vodafone Idea proposed settling the dues by treating Rs. 17,213 crore as final principal and requested a waiver of the remaining interest and penalties, suggesting a staggered repayment of Rs. 7,852 crore over 20 years. This proposal was rejected by the DoT on April 29, 2025, citing the finality of the Supreme Court's earlier decision.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan further noted its disapproval of attempts to re-litigate settled issues under the guise of financial hardship and recorded its concern that reputed corporations should not seek judicial indulgence in contravention of binding judgments.
The Court observed, "Heard Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Arvind Datar, and Shyam Divan appearing for the petitioners. Three multinational companies have come before this Court by way of writ petitions. We believe these are misconceived writ petitions. Dismissed."
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed all three writ petitions, reiterating that no reassessment or waiver of AGR dues, including interest and penalties, could be granted at this stage, and upheld the enforceability of its 2019 ruling.
Picture Source :
