Introduction
In a notable reiteration of the finality of judicial decisions, the Supreme Court of India on May 19, 2025, dismissed writ petitions filed by major telecom players, including Vodafone Idea Ltd., challenging the imposition of interest, penalties, and interest on penalties on Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues. The petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and aimed to seek relief from financial liabilities that arose following the Court's earlier rulings on AGR. The decision reinforces the constitutional boundaries of Article 32 jurisdiction and the legal principle that curative and final judgments of the apex court cannot be reopened under the guise of new public interest claims.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Legal Background: The AGR Controversy
- The 2025 Petitions: Claims and Reliefs
- Supreme Court's Observations and Ruling
- Legal and Sectoral Implications
Legal Background: The AGR Controversy
The controversy over Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) has its roots in the interpretation of licensing terms between telecom operators and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). While the telecom service providers argued for a narrow construction of AGR, limited to core telecom revenue, the DoT maintained that AGR included all revenue, including that from non-core sources such as rent, interest, and dividend income.
In a landmark judgment in 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the DoT's interpretation, thereby significantly increasing the liabilities of telecom companies. The Court directed the payment of not only the principal amount but also interest, penalties, and interest on penalties. This decision resulted in a cumulative financial burden exceeding ₹1.47 lakh crore on telecom providers1
Subsequently, in September 2020, acknowledging the financial distress in the sector, the Supreme Court allowed the dues to be paid in ten equal annual installments ending in 2031.2 Despite these concessions, telcos continued to make representations to the government seeking waiver or reduction of additional charges.
The 2025 Petitions: Claims and Reliefs
In 2025, Vodafone Idea Ltd. and other operators approached the Supreme Court with fresh writ petitions invoking Article 32. They argued that the insistence on payment of interest and penalties was arbitrary and economically ruinous, especially when the principal amounts were already being paid in installments. The petitioners prayed for:
- A direction restraining the government from demanding interest, penalty, and interest on penalty.
- A declaration that the demand for 'interest on interest' during the installment period was illegal.
- In the alternative, a direction for the government to consider their pending representations in a time-bound and fair manner.
Supreme Court's Observations and Ruling
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the sanctity of previous rulings. The Court stated:
"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."
The Bench noted that the writ petitions sought to indirectly reopen issues that had already been decided conclusively through the Court's judgment dated October 24, 2019, and the subsequent curative petition process. The Court held that such petitions were misconceived and not maintainable under Article 32, which is reserved for the enforcement of fundamental rights not for circumventing the doctrine of finality.
Legal and Sectoral Implications
This ruling is a significant reaffirmation of judicial discipline and finality. By refusing to entertain repetitive litigation, the Supreme Court has safeguarded the principles of legal certainty and consistency. The judgment sends a strong signal to the industry that challenges to settled legal positions must end at some point, and the remedy for economic grievances lies within the policy-making domain, not the judiciary.
For the telecom sector, the decision highlights the urgent need to engage with policymakers for sustainable solutions rather than relying on extended legal recourse. With AGR liabilities fixed and installment timelines in place, telecom companies must now focus on operational stability and financial restructuring.
Footnotes
1. Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 516.
2. Supreme Court Order dated September 1, 2020 in Misc. Application No. 1319/2020 in Civil Appeal No. 6328-6399/2015
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
