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 below 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 assessment petitions, stating, “Will probably be a really unhappy day if the very best Courtroom of this Nation begins entertaining Article 32 writ petitions on the identical subject material after the healing petitions are dismissed.”
Regardless of this, throughout a June 2 earnings name, Vodafone Thought CEO Akshaya Moondra acknowledged that the corporate stays engaged with the Union authorities to hunt a decision.
“So far as the federal government reduction is worried, I believe we’re engaged with the federal government… What the federal government will do, I can not touch upon their behalf. However positively put up the judgment, we proceed with our engagement with the federal government to discover a answer to the AGR matter,” he mentioned.
Authorized consultants swiftly denounced the assertion, arguing that it misrepresented the court docket’s place. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai lately cautioned towards 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 instances, acknowledged that the Supreme Courtroom’s Could 19 order reaffirmed the finality of AGR dues. He careworn that any future authorities intervention or govt reduction altering the quantum or finality of AGR dues was now precluded by the court docket’s determination. 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 below 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 problem is set by the very best court docket, the choices for each the corporate and authorities are restricted, as the chief can not override the regulation 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 expenses. 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 assessment petitions in 2020 and healing petitions dismissed in September 2024–the telcos made yet one more try by submitting Article 32 writs in Could 2025, searching for a waiver price roughly Rs80,000 crore. Nonetheless, the Supreme Courtroom firmly rejected these petitions, remarking that reopening the problem can be “a really unhappy day,” reiterating its perception that the writ petitions have been “misconceived.”
In the course of the listening to, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Thought, conceded that each one authorized avenues–including assessment 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 can assist you, we aren’t coming in the way in which; who’s stopping them from taking a look on the illustration?”
Nonetheless, Rohatgi knowledgeable the court docket that the federal government had declined to contemplate the request, citing the binding nature of the AGR ruling.
The Solicitor Basic confirmed that the chief was restricted from intervening resulting from prior Supreme Courtroom choices. The bench concluded: “For those who can not look at it, we additionally can not look at it now.”
Rohatgi’s subsequent plea to withdraw the petition was denied, alongside along with his request to insert a press release permitting petitioners to strategy the federal government. The court docket remarked, “Every little thing has its personal limits.”
