AGR verdict: There is no closure in this case, says Abhishek Singhvi

Singhvi, third-term sitting member of Parliament and eminent jurist who represented Airtel, explains why the issue is yet to reach legal closure

Following the order of the Supreme Court of India on the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues case, Abhishek Singhvi, third-term sitting member of Parliament and eminent jurist who represented Airtel, explains to Sudipto Dey why the issue is yet to reach legal closure. Edited excerpts:

Should we now expect a legal closure on the issue after the Supreme Court order?

At one level, it brings a quietus on such an important commercial matter. However, I don’t think this is permanent or even long term. It is very likely that one or more of the entities involved in the matter will file review petitions. Different companies may have different reasons to seek review. For example, the treatment of Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) as AGR dues is an error and a strong ground  for seeking review.

Some of us had argued that SUC is a totally different charge, conceptually and in nature. I had also pointed out that SUC amounts were not part of the AGR calculations by the government in a chart handed over by the Solicitor General of India to the apex court during the course of hearing. The calculation of SUC may involve formulae referring to AGR but that does not make SUC an intrinsic component of AGR. These significant conceptual points have not been considered.

Equally, the ten-year period reduction may lead to a review, given the huge economic downturn, the present and long-term effects of Covid-9 and the sectoral distress.

Any possibility of the government seeking a review?

The government may well file a review. It was the government’s idea to seek 20 years for repayment of dues. The government alone could take into consideration the larger picture given the current economic scenario, a mega all-India perspective and the need for support to the sector so that long-term distress is avoided.

The issue of whether spectrum can be traded under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has been left unresolved. Your comments.

Paucity of time in view of the impending retirement of the presiding judge made that inevitable. Since it's a much larger issue, with very wide ramifications, the Bench has referred it to the Tribunal but it is inevitable that it will make its way to the Supreme Court in the not too distant future. Hence, there is no closure in this case; instead there is the beginning of new offshoots!