SEARCH

News » National

Updated: October 20, 2013 19:02 IST

2G: Supreme Court agrees to study Centre's review petition

J. Venkatesan
Comment (3)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
In this file photo a man passes by mobile phone shops in Mumbai. The Supreme Court has refused to hear affected telecom firms whose petitions for reconsideration of its 2G verdict cancelling their licences were dismissed.
AP In this file photo a man passes by mobile phone shops in Mumbai. The Supreme Court has refused to hear affected telecom firms whose petitions for reconsideration of its 2G verdict cancelling their licences were dismissed.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the Union government's petition seeking a review of the 2G spectrum judgment that quashed spectrum licences and directed issuance of fresh ones on the basis of auction.

A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and K.S. Radhakrishnan issued notice the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, on whose petitions the licences were cancelled.

“We do not want to question the order on the cancellation of licences,” Additional Solicitor-General Indira Jaising said at the outset. “What is of concern for us is the question of law. Some of the questions require revisiting.”

Justice Singhvi told her “it is because of the apprehension of the government.” However, Ms. Jaising said the review petition was not due to any apprehension but certain questions should be clarified.

When senior counsels Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for telecom companies pleaded for notice to the companies, contending that they should be heard as they were vitally interested in the matter if the government was to cancel the licences, Justice Singhvi said: “If we feel it appropriate, we will hear you.”

May 1 hearing

The Bench, while posting the matter for hearing on May 1, made it clear that issuance of notice would not mean that there was stay on the judgment insofar as cancellation of licences was concerned.

The Centre, in its review petition, said it was only questioning the conclusion of the judgment that all national resources should be auctioned. It claimed that absurd results would follow from the conclusion, as it (the government) was bound to implement auction policy in distribution of all natural resource/national wealth in all circumstances and would be precluded from following any other policy. The government could only formulate a single policy for distribution of any natural resource/national wealth, irrespective of any reasons to the contrary.

It said, “Auction of 2G licences would adversely affect and hamper the objective of promoting tele-density in semi-urban and rural areas. As new entrants would be burdened with very high acquisition costs for licence and spectrum, it was unlikely that they would penetrate new markets and offer services at a competitive cost to consumers in terms of urban and rural areas. The government said the judgment would adversely affect competition in telecom operations.”

“Policy not flawed”

It disagreed with the observation that the telecom policy was flawed, saying the policy decision was not open to judicial review. Having travelled beyond the limits of judicial review and entered the realms of policy-making, the court did not apply its mind to the considerations of promoting growth, affordability, penetration of wireless services in semi-urban and rural areas and maintaining a level-playing field, the petition said.

The court came to the conclusion that the only method of maximising revenue for the state was through holding of public auction, without applying its mind in the facts of whether this was the case. Had the court applied its mind, it would have considered that in the prevailing facts and circumstances at the time the first come, first served (FCFS) policy was adopted was more advantageous to the state in maximising revenue in the long-term rather than short-term by promoting growth and penetration of wireless services in semi-urban and rural areas.

Contending that the FCFS policy had the twin objective of a level-playing field and providing affordability, the Centre sought a direction to review the February 2 verdict.

More In: National | News

By making a Presidential reference the government wants to make
the issue complicated. No honest government will seek such opinion
as all the questions of the reference in itself has the answer if one
reads it in the right perspective.

from:  adiseshan
Posted on: Apr 19, 2012 at 16:37 IST

'...Had the court applied its mind, it would have considered that in the prevailing facts
and circumstances at the time the first come, first served (FCFS) policy was adopted
was more advantageous to the state in maximising revenue in the long-term rather
than short-term by promoting growth and penetration of wireless services in semi-
urban and rural areas...'
~ This is what is called obfuscation. What is the morally right stand?

from:  Soundararajan Srinivasa
Posted on: Apr 14, 2012 at 02:11 IST

Thanks to the lawyer duo,Raja and Chidambaram,senior lawyers are
gainfully engaged in 2g cases.While Raja is still in jail,Chidambaram is
still in cabinet.

from:  S.Srinivasan
Posted on: Apr 13, 2012 at 22:57 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

International

Tamil Nadu

Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka

Kerala


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in National

File picture shows trucks waiting to load coal at a mine in Ramgarh. The e-auction of coal blocks for private companies got the nod from President Pranab Mukherjee who promulgated an Ordinance to this effect on Tuesday.

President promulgates Ordinance to allow e-auction of coal blocks

The move, seen as a step towards energy sector reforms, will allow private companies to bid for captive use and allot mines directly to State and Central public sector undertakings. »