2G Spectrum Case: Registrar Rejects Centre’s Plea as Misconceived, Citing Lack of Reasonable Cause for Entertainment
The Supreme Court Registrar recently declined to accept an application filed by the Centre seeking clarification of the 2012 judgment in the 2G Spectrum case. The central government aimed to clarify that the verdict does not prohibit spectrum allocation through methods other than public auction under certain circumstances.
The Registrar dismissed the application, stating that it effectively sought a review of the 2012 verdict under the guise of seeking clarification. Terming it as misconceived, the Registrar cited the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which empower refusal of petitions lacking reasonable cause, being frivolous, or containing scandalous content. The Centre has the option to appeal to the Court against the Registrar’s decision within fifteen days.
Highlighting a nearly 12-year gap since the filing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Registrar noted that the Union Government itself withdrew a review petition filed against the 2012 verdict in May 2012.
The Registrar observed that the Centre’s application sought a rehearing of the matter in open court, similar to the prayer made in the earlier review petition. The 2012 judgment had scrapped the first-come-first-served basis for 2G spectrum allocation, advocating public auction as the preferred method for allocating public resources.
The Centre, in its application, sought exemption from auctioning for non-commercial purposes essential for sovereign and public interest functions such as security and disaster management. It argued for administrative spectrum allocation in situations where demand is lower than supply and auctioning may not be economically feasible. The Centre emphasized that such assignments are interim and provisional, made at administratively determined prices in compliance with the CPIL judgment.
Consequently, the Union Government requested clarification that administrative spectrum assignment may be considered if determined through due process and in line with the law, especially for governmental functions or public interest, or when auctioning is not preferred due to technical or economic reasons.
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
