SC registry rejects Centre's plea for administrative allocation of telecom spectrum

SC junks plea to review spectrum auction

The Supreme Court's registry recently rejected an application by the central government, seeking to modify a 2012 order to allow for administrative allocation of spectrum in select cases where using the auction route is not technically feasible.

The application, in the nature of clarification, in effect, seeks review of the judgment of February 2, 2012, after lapse of over 11 long years, which is impermissible in law, the order of the registry accessed by Moneycontrol said.

In February 2012, the Supreme Court  had quashed the licences and allocation of spectrum granted on or after January 2008 after Public Interest Litigations (PIL) were initiated, alleging corruption in the process. It further ordered that grant of licence and allocation of spectrum in the 2G band in 22 service areas should be by auction.

In 2013, the SC directed that the entire spectrum released as a result of quashing of the licences should be auctioned without further delay. This judgment made it mandatory for the government to auction spectrum, rather than allocate it.

Pursuant to the judgment, the government filed a petition seeking review of the judgment, however, it was called off later. Apart from the Union government, telecom companies also filed curative and review petition, the court, however, dismissed them by February 2013.

"The Union of India now seeks clarification to firm up spectrum assignment framework, including methods of assignment of spectrum, other than auction, in suitable cases, to best subserve the common good," the registry order said.

The government had contended that the assignment of spectrum is not only for commercial use but also for non-commercial use, and so, it needs clarification on whether spectrum can also be allocated in an administrative manner.

However, according to the registry, the Centre had not disclose any reasonable cause to seek this clarification. "The 2012 judgment does not entitle the applicant herein to file an application of this nature seeking clarification of the judgment, more so, when the review petition filed on behalf of the Union of India seeking review of the judgment was withdrawn," the order said.

It further noted that having withdrawn the review petition, there was no mandate in law to file a petition of this nature.

The registry further cited judgments from the SC, noting that in many cases, applications for clarification and modification are in reality indirect applications seeking review of the judgment. In this case, the registry noted that such an application could not have been filed especially 11 years after the SC judgment.

"The applicant is again attempting to obtain re-hearing of the matter in open Court after long lapse of time, in the guise of filing the present application with a similar prayer which was already made in the Review Petition filed by the applicant," the order of the registry said.