SC dismisses PIL against 4G licences to Reliance Jio

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a PIL challenging the grant of 4G licences to Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (RJIL), saying no undue favour was shown to the firm by the government and there was no loss to the exchequer.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said the government's decision permitting migration of the telecom licenses to unified license (UL) regime was "valid, legal and without any blemish".

The bench junked the petition of NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), challenging government's decision to allow RJIL to offer voice services on its 4G spectrum.

The apex court also dealt with the issue of spectrum usage charge (SUC) but it did not pass any order on this, observing that a committee, which was formed, has submitted its report and a decision on it was likely in two months.

"The decision on the report is expected in two months. In view of the aforesaid developments, for the time being, we leave the matter to the Government to take an appropriate decision in this behalf," the bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri and R Banumathi, said.

"We find no merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed," it said.

The PIL, filed in 2014 through advocate Prashant Bhushan, had sought quashing of permission granted by the government to Reliance for providing voice telephony on Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) spectrum and pitched for a court-monitored CBI investigation in the alleged Rs 40,000 crore scam.

It had alleged that decision allowing voice telephony to RJIL on payment of Rs 1,658 crores entry fee was a pittance as in normal course, grant of this license would have fetched a whopping sum of Rs 25,000 crores approximately.

The bench, in its 55-page judgement, noted that a policy decision was taken by the government not only with regard to introduction of unified licensing regime but it also included allowing migration to UL from Unified Access Services Licence as well as internet service providers (ISP) to UL regime.

"Such a policy decision, when not found to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations or mala fide or against any statutory provisions, does not call for any interference by the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review," it said.

The bench further said, "minimal interference is called for by the courts, in exercise of judicial review of a Government policy when the said policy is the outcome of deliberations of the technical experts in the fields inasmuch as Courts are not well-equipped to fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the execution."

Dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner that there should have been a separate auction for voice telephony, the apex court observed that government had deliberated upon the issue.

"The aforesaid discussion leads us to irresistible conclusion that decision of the Government permitting migration of telecom licenses to UL regime is valid, legal and without any blemish," it said.

The bench said neither was there discrimination on the part of the government, nor was any undue favouritism shown to RJIL as it was not in dispute that as per the new policy, the firm was eligible to apply for UL from BWL spectrum.

"Therefore, it cannot be treated as a case of back door entry of respondent no.2 (RJIL)," it said.

On the allegation of loss to the exchequer, the bench said, "It, therefore, cannot be said that the fee of Rs 1,658 crore charged from respondent no.2 is in any way less or that it has caused any wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to respondent no. 2 or that the Government would have fetched much more price."

"We, thus, do not find any error in the action of the Government in allowing the migration from UASL to UL by making respondent no. 2 to pay a sum of Rs 1,658 crores in this behalf," it said.

Regarding the contentions of petitioner about the draft report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the bench said this was "only a draft report".

"Many queries and doubts in the said draft report were addressed and answered by the Government. The final report of CAG is materially different from the draft report. It appears that in the draft report, CAG proceeded on the wrong premise that the license was also to be auctioned," it said.