Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • P.P Rao, Harish N. Salve, Dr A.M Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocates (Ritin Rai, Manu Sanan, Ms Apeksha Saran, D.S Mahra, Ms Bina Gupta, Sitesh Mukherjee, Shankh Sengupta, Mansoor Ali Shoket, Nitin Kala, Ms Vibha Dhawan, Pukhramban Ramesh Kumar, E.C Agrawala, Ms Samarik Singh, Subramonium Prasad, Abhishek Chaudhary, Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan, N. Ganpathy and Manpreet Lamba, Advocates) for the Applicants;
  • Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ramesh K. Mishra, Advocates and Subramanian Swamy (Petitioner in Person), for the non-Applicants.
Judges
  • Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan
  • Justice G.S. Singhvi
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act is not present. However, Annexure A-4 and WP (C) No. 423 of 2012 are mentioned.
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • P.P Rao, Harish N. Salve, Dr A.M Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocates (Ritin Rai, Manu Sanan, Ms Apeksha Saran, D.S Mahra, Ms Bina Gupta, Sitesh Mukherjee, Shankh Sengupta, Mansoor Ali Shoket, Nitin Kala, Ms Vibha Dhawan, Pukhramban Ramesh Kumar, E.C Agrawala, Ms Samarik Singh, Subramonium Prasad, Abhishek Chaudhary, Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan, N. Ganpathy and Manpreet Lamba, Advocates) for the Applicants;
  • Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ramesh K. Mishra, Advocates and Subramanian Swamy (Petitioner in Person), for the non-Applicants.
Judges
  • Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan
  • Justice G.S. Singhvi
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act is not present. However, Annexure A-4 and WP (C) No. 423 of 2012 are mentioned.
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Supreme Court of India
IA No. 8 of 2012 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010

Factual and Procedural Background

On 2 February 2012, this Court quashed certain telecom licences and directed that fresh licences and spectrum be allocated only through a transparent, market-based auction. In the wake of that judgment, the Union of India (Department of Telecommunications) filed IA No. 8 of 2012 seeking the Court’s leave to follow a revised time-line for conducting the auction. Pursuant to Court directions dated 24 August 2012, the Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, submitted an affidavit affirming the Government’s “firm and irrevocable” commitment to implement the 2-2-2012 judgment in full. The present order resolves the Government’s request for additional time and other incidental reliefs.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Union of India should be granted additional time—up to 11 January 2013—to complete the auction of spectrum mandated by the judgment dated 2-2-2012.
  2. Whether the Court ought to bar all other courts and authorities from entertaining proceedings that could impede the auction process.
  3. Whether existing licensees whose licences were cancelled should be allowed to continue operations until completion of the auction (18 January 2013).

Arguments of the Parties

Union of India (Applicant)

  • Reaffirmed an “irrevocable” commitment to implement the 2-2-2012 judgment.
  • Contended that adequate preparatory time is indispensable for both the auctioneer and prospective bidders to ensure effective participation and true market discovery of spectrum prices.
  • Proposed to commence the auction on 12-11-2012 and complete post-auction formalities within 40 days.

Other Applicants/Existing Licensees

  • Through senior counsel Harish N. Salve and Dr A. M. Singhvi, submitted that, should the Court extend the auction time-line, the period during which existing licensees are permitted to operate must also be correspondingly extended.

Writ Petitioner and Dr Subramanian Swamy

  • Opposed the Union’s request, alleging deliberate delay aimed at benefiting the very licensees whose licences had been cancelled.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1 (judgment dated 2-2-2012) Cancelled 122 telecom licences and directed that future allocation of spectrum be through a fair and transparent auction at market-determined prices. Served as the governing mandate; the Court assessed the Union’s compliance and fixed fresh deadlines to fulfil the auction requirement.
Order dated 24-8-2012 in IAs Nos. 8-10 of 2012 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010, (2014) 14 SCC 349 Required a firm undertaking from the Government and set interim directions for implementing the 2-2-2012 judgment. The Court referred to the Secretary’s affidavit filed pursuant to this order as evidence of the Government’s commitment, influencing its decision to grant additional time.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognised the affidavit of the Telecom Secretary and the oral undertakings of counsel as evidence of the Government’s bona fide intent to comply with its earlier directions. Emphasising the need for an orderly and credible auction, it accepted that a limited extension of time was justified. At the same time, the Bench balanced this indulgence with stringent safeguards: it warned that failure to finish the auction by 11 January 2013 would invite suo motu contempt proceedings and exemplary costs. To protect the auction from collateral challenges, the Court invoked its plenary powers to prohibit all other courts and authorities from entertaining any proceeding that might “directly or indirectly impede” the auction. Finally, acceding to submissions by counsel for existing licensees, it allowed them to operate until 18 January 2013, thereby ensuring continuity of services during the transition.

Holding and Implications

Application Partly Allowed. The Union of India is granted time until 11 January 2013 to conduct and complete the auction of spectrum. All courts and authorities nationwide are restrained from passing any orders that could impede the auction, and existing licensees may continue operations until 18 January 2013. The matter is listed for further consideration on 14 January 2013 (in lieu of 12 January, a Saturday).

Implications: The order provides a definitive, Court-sanctioned schedule for the spectrum auction while insulating the process from judicial interference. Although it does not establish new substantive precedent, it reinforces the Supreme Court’s supervisory role in ensuring compliance with its judgments and signals that future delays will attract contempt sanctions.

Show full summary ...

    Centre For Public Interest Litigation And Others v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    IA No. 8 of 2012 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2012

    1. This application has been filed on behalf of the Union of India with the following substantive prayers:

    “(a) Pass appropriate orders that the applicant may conduct the auction process in accordance with the time line set forth in Annexure A-4 hereto to facilitate the commencement of actual auction of spectrum on or before 12-11-2012;
    (b) Pass appropriate orders that following the completion of the auction, the applicant may complete the further process of allocation of spectrum and grant of licences in a further period of 40 days.”

    2. In Paras 2 and 10 of the application, the following averments have been made:

    “2. At the outset, it is respectfully stated that the applicant is fully and irrevocably committed to the implementation of the judgment and orders of this Hon'ble Court. As set forth more fully below, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant has already taken several steps and is taking further steps necessary with due dispatch and in accordance with the legal and regulatory framework to ensure the prompt implementation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court and for the expeditious conduct of the auction for the purpose of grant of fresh telecommunication licences and spectrum as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
    ***
    10. It is therefore respectfully reiterated that the Government of India is fully and irrevocably committed to complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court as contained in the judgment dated 2-2-2012 (2012) 3 SCC 1 and the order dated 24-8-2012 IAs Nos. 8-10 of 2012 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010 by the conduct of an auction that is fair and impartial. The applicant would like to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that in order to meet the objectives of the auction, sufficient time needs to be given to the auctioneer so that it can carry out all the required steps for the auction in an appropriate manner. At the same time, enough time needs to be given to the bidders to enable them to take all necessary steps to participate effectively in the auction including for raising funds/resources, obtaining internal approvals, etc. Only if sufficient time is provided in respect of the above, effective participation and proper discovery of market price of spectrum would result. In the absence of adequate time, the objectives laid down by this Hon'ble Court for allocating spectrum through auction at market prices may not be fully achieved and the Government of India revenues may be impacted adversely.”

    3. In compliance with the direction given by this Court on 24-8-2012 (2014) 14 SCC 349 (F2), Shri R. Chandrashekhar, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi filed an affidavit dated 24-8-2012 (2014) 14 SCC 349 (F2), Paras 1 and 2 of which read as under:

    “1. I am fully conversant with the facts of the case and I am filing this affidavit, availing the permission granted by this Hon'ble Court on Friday 24-8-2012 (2014) 14 SCC 349 (F2) to give a firm and irrevocable undertaking that the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 2-2-2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 423 of 2010, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1 is being implemented and will be implemented fully, faithfully and as expeditiously as possible.
    2. As already stated in para 2 at p. 2 and in para 10 at p. 8 of IA No. 8 of 2012 filed on 9-8-2012, the Central Government is firmly and irrevocably committed to implement the aforesaid judgment. The Presidential Reference has nothing to do insofar as implementation of the aforesaid judgment of this Hon'ble Court which has become final and binding is concerned.”

    4. We have heard Shri P.P Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants, Sarva Shri Harish N. Salve, Dr A.M Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants in other interlocutory applications, Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Dr Subramanian Swamy, who had appeared in the connected petition which was decided on 2-2-2012 (2012) 3 SCC 1.

    5. Shri P.P Rao emphasised that the Government of India is committed to comply with the direction given by the Court on 2-2-2012 (2012) 3 SCC 1 for conducting auction for grant of licences and allotment of spectrum. He submitted that the auction will start on 12-11-2012 and sufficient time will be required for completing the same. S/Shri Harish Salve and Dr A.M Singhvi submitted that if the Court is inclined to entertain the prayer made on behalf of the Union of India then the tenure of the permission granted to the existing licensees to continue to operate may be extended.

    6. Shri Prashant Bhushan and Dr Subramanian Swamy opposed the prayer made on behalf of the Union of India and submitted that the applicants are deliberately delaying implementation of the direction given by the Court so that the persons whose licences were cancelled by the Court may continue to operate.

    7. We have considered the respective submissions. In view of the undertaking given by the applicants to faithfully implement the direction given by the Court, which is also reflected in the affidavit of Shri R. Chandrashekhar, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, we deem it proper to accept the prayer made in the application to the extent of allowing time to the applicants till 11-1-2013 for conducting and completing the auction in terms of the direction given by this Court on 2-2-2012 (2012) 3 SCC 1.

    8. List all the IAs on 12-1-2013 for further consideration. If the applicants fail to complete the auction by 11-1-2013, the Court will be constrained to suo motu initiate proceedings against the officers and authorities concerned under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution and may also impose exemplary costs on the applicants.

    9. With a view to ensure that the auction proceedings are not impeded by any judicial intervention, we direct that no court in the country shall entertain any suit, petition or application or any other action/proceeding involving challenge to the auction being conducted pursuant to the directions given by this Court and no court or authority shall pass any interim order which may directly or indirectly impede the process of auction. The existing licensees shall be entitled to continue to operate till 18-1-2013.

    10. Before this order was released, the Court Master brought to our notice that 12-1-2013 which has been fixed by the Court is a Saturday. Therefore, we direct that instead of 12-1-2013, the case be listed on 14-1-2013. The counsel for the parties may be informed accordingly.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Centre For Public Interest Litigation And Others v. Union Of India And Others
    (Aug 27, 2012)