New Delhi: The Supreme Court registry on Tuesday (April 30) refused to schedule the Union government’s request for clarification regarding the top court’s 2012 2G judgement.
This means that the application, filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party government in December 2023, will not be brought before the judges for an open-court hearing.
According to The Print, the registry’s decision states that the application is “misconceived” and essentially seeks a review of the verdict under the “guise of seeking clarification”.
The registrar also noted that the Union government had withdrawn a review petition against the 2012 verdict on May 10, 2012.
The Supreme Court’s 2012 decision revoked the 2G spectrum allocation and instructed the CBI to investigate what it termed the “2G scam.” The court ruled against the first-come-first-serve basis for spectrum allocation and said that it was the state’s duty to allot natural resources transparently.
This judgement was hailed by the BJP in 2012 while accusing the UPA government of corruption in the 2G spectrum allocation. However, in December last year the BJP-led Union government sought a ‘clarification’ on the 12-year-old verdict, asking to allocate spectrum through other legally-valid administrative procedures.
The registrar refused to schedule the application for a hearing, stating that the plea was filed almost 12 years after the original verdict and did not provide reasonable grounds for consideration, in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The administrative order also noted that the Centre’s attempt to secure a rehearing in open court after such a long period resembled its previous request in the review petition.
According to The Print, the Union government may appeal against the registrar’s decision.
A member of the government’s legal team, speaking to The Print, stated that the Union government would challenge the administrative order on the judicial side, arguing that the registrar (judicial) overstepped by offering an opinion on the application’s nature rather than scheduling it for a hearing.
The government’s application highlighted the need for spectrum not only in commercial telecommunications but also for non-commercial purposes such as security, safety and disaster preparedness.
It argued that if spectrum allocation served governmental or ‘public interests’ or if auctions were not feasible due to technical or economic reasons, the government should have the option to allocate spectrum through lawful processes.
