The court, however, said the two could be summoned at a later stage if there were sufficient grounds to do so.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu said the lower court was wrong in issuing summons against Mittal and Ruia. “The legal principle has been wrongly applied. We set aside the order of the special court,” the Bench said.
In a statement, Essar said, “The judgment re-establishes that the directors and shareholders cannot be made vicariously liable in criminal matters. We welcome the judgment. It will assuage concerns among corporate leaders regarding misuse of judicial processes and help re-instil confidence among investors and corporates, especially at a time when India is looking to attract fresh investments and increase growth.”
In April 2013, Bharti and Essar had moved the Supreme Court, challenging judge O P Saini’s decision to summon Mittal, Ruia and Asim Ghosh, Hutchison Essar’s former managing director, as accused. Saini had said there was “enough material on record to proceed against them” and the acts of these companies were “attributed and imputed to them”.
This matter pertains to a case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on alleged irregularity in the allocation of additional spectrum to GSM operators, including Bharti and Vodafone in 2002, under then telecom minister Pramod Mahajan. However, in its charge sheet in December 2012, the CBI had named only Shyamal Ghosh, then telecom secretary, and three private companies —Bharti Cellular (now Bharti Airtel), Hutchison Max and Sterling Cellular (now Vodafone) — as accused.
Last month, the counsels of Mittal and Ruia had argued the trial court should not have summoned the two, as they weren’t named in the charge sheet. The allegation that Mittal had met Pramod Mahajan and then telecom secretary Shyamal Ghosh wasn’t substantial grounds for issuing summons, Mittal’s counsel had said.
At that time, the apex court had reserved its order.
In its charge sheet, the CBI had alleged Ghosh had abused his position as a public servant and extended undue favours to beneficiary companies, which led to a loss of Rs 846 crore to the exchequer.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)