Vodafone Concept vs SC dispute: Akshaya Moondra’s AGR aid comment raises eyebrows; triggers debate on prime court docket’s ruling | India Information – Instances of India

NEW DELHI: Vodafone Concept CEO Akshaya Moondra’s latest assertion about persevering with talks with the federal government looking for aid for adjusted gross income (AGR) dues have triggered authorized backlash, with consultants saying the feedback are deceptive.His assertion got here simply days after a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court docket, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, on Might 19 dismissed Article 32 petitions filed by Vodafone Concept, Bharti Airtel, and the Tata Group. The petitions had sought waivers on adjusted gross income (AGR) curiosity and penalties, which quantity to just about Rs 80,000 crore.Throughout a June 2 earnings name, Moondra mentioned, “So far as the federal government aid is anxious, I feel we’re engaged with the federal government… What the federal government will do, I can’t touch upon their behalf. However undoubtedly put up the judgment, we proceed with our engagement with the federal government to discover a resolution to the AGR matter.”The court docket termed the petitions “misconceived” and mentioned that the AGR difficulty had already been settled by way of its 2019 judgment and subsequent overview and healing petitions. “Will probably be a really unhappy day if the very best Court docket of this Nation begins entertaining Article 32 writ petitions on the identical material after the healing petitions are dismissed,” the bench noticed.Vodafone Concept’s try and re-engage the federal government after such a transparent verdict triggered criticism from the authorized fraternity.Advocate Gaurav Gupta mentioned the Might 19 order reaffirmed that AGR dues had been last. He added that any try by the federal government to now supply aid can be towards the regulation established by the Supreme Court docket. “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 manager can’t override the regulation established by the Supreme Court docket,” mentioned Advocate Ashish Dixit.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Vodafone Concept in court docket, had conceded through the listening to that every one authorized avenues, together with overview and healing petitions, had been exhausted. He requested the court docket to let the federal government take into account the corporate’s illustration. However the bench reminded him, “If the federal government needs that will help you, we aren’t coming in the best way; who’s stopping them from taking a look on the illustration?”Nonetheless, Rohatgi admitted the federal government had refused to take action, citing the binding nature of the court docket’s earlier rulings. The Solicitor Normal additionally confirmed that the manager was unable to intervene because of the 2019 verdict and its finality.Regardless of this, Moondra’s remarks advised that Vodafone Concept continued to count on some decision from the Centre. Authorized consultants criticised this as probably deceptive to the general public and shareholders.Chief Justice BR Gavai lately warned towards distortion of judicial remarks, noting that such misinterpretations can negatively have an effect on public understanding of court docket rulings.Advocate Mohit Paul reminded that the AGR definition difficulty was settled in October 2019, when the Supreme Court docket dominated it contains all income, telecom or in any other case, and confirmed the telcos should pay Rs 1.56 trillion together with penalties and curiosity.Since then, all authorized efforts, together with overview and healing petitions, had been dismissed. When the telcos filed a contemporary spherical of Article 32 writ petitions in Might 2025, the Supreme Court docket didn’t entertain them, stating “all the pieces has its personal limits.”Rohatgi’s last try and withdraw the petition or at the very least insert an announcement permitting petitioners to method the federal government was additionally rejected.