'Misconceived' : Supreme Court Registry Rejects Centre's Application To Clarify 2G Case Verdict For Administrative Allotment Of Spectrum
The Supreme Court's Registrar refused to receive the application filed by the Union Government seeking clarification of the 2012 judgment in the 2G Spectrum case. The Government sought a clarification that the verdict does not bar the allocation of spectrum through means other than public auction in certain situations.Stating that the application was in effect seeking a review of the...
The Supreme Court's Registrar refused to receive the application filed by the Union Government seeking clarification of the 2012 judgment in the 2G Spectrum case. The Government sought a clarification that the verdict does not bar the allocation of spectrum through means other than public auction in certain situations.
Stating that the application was in effect seeking a review of the 2012 judgment in the guise of seeking clarification, the Registrar rejected it by terming it "misconceived." The Registrar stated that the application "does not disclose any reasonable cause for being entertained" and refused to receive it as per the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
As per this provision, “The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter, but the petitioner may within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court.” Therefore, the Centre has the remedy of appealing to the Court against the Registrar's order.
The Registrar also cited the time gap of nearly 12 years in filing the Miscellaneous Application. It was also noted that the Union Government itself had withdrawn the review petition filed against the verdict on May 10, 2012.
"Applicant is again attempting to obtain rehearing of the matter in open court after a 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 Registrar said
In the 2G case verdict (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India) delivered in February 2012, the Supreme Court set aside the 'first-come-fisrt-served (FCFS) basis for the assignment of 2G spectrum. The Court also observed that public auction should be the preferred method for the allocation of public resources like spectrum.
The Union, in the application, sought exemption from the auction for non-commercial purposes in order to discharge sovereign and public interest functions including security, safety, disaster etc.
"Such non-commercial use would squarely fall within the scope of subserving the common good."
It was further added that in certain situations, economics do not favour auctioning but rather assignment, especially when demand is lower than supply.
"That, assignment may require to be undertaken administratively due to economic conditions such as demand being lower than supply or due to technical conditions such as spectrum for space communication, where it would be more optimal and efficient for spectrum to be shared by multiple players, rather than being broken up into smaller blocks for sole purpose of exclusive assignment by auction"
"There are also specific sui generis categories of usage, including commercial use of spectrum where, technical and economic conditions of the use affect the feasibility of auction as a means of assignment of spectrum and thus auction as the exclusive mode may present some issues in the relevant assignment (e.g., in the case of captive use, radio backhaul or one time or sporadic use).
The Union said that in such cases, spectrum is being allotted administratively, at administratively determined prices. However, in view of the CPIL judgment, these assignments are made on the condition that it is interim and provisional.
The Union therefore sought the following clarification :
"Issue appropriate clarifications that the Government, may consider the assignment of spectrum through administrative process if so.determined through due process in accordance with law, and if such assignment is in pursuit of governmental functions, or public interest so requires, or auction may not be preferred due to technical or economic reasons;"