Vodafone Idea vs SC Controversy: Akshay Mondra’s agri relief comment raises eyebrows; Tiger debate on top court decision | Bharat News

New Delhi: A recent statement about the government demanding relief for the GDP (AGR) adjusted by the government in a recent statement by Akshay Mondra, CEO of Vodafone Idea, triggers legal backlash, experts said that comments are misleading.His statement came only a few days after the bench of two judges of the Supreme Court, with Justices JB Pardwala and R. Mahadevan was involved, rejecting Article 32 petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Group. The petitions had demanded exemption on adjusted gross revenue (AGR) interest and punishment, which was an amount of about Rs 80,000 crore.During the June 2 earnings, Mondra said, “As far as the relief of the government is concerned, I think we are engaged with the government … What the government will do, I cannot comment on their behalf. But definitely post the decision, we continue their engagement with the government to find a solution to the AGR case. ,The court termed the petitions as “wrong” and stated that the AGR issue was already resolved through its 2019 decisions and later reviews and remedial petitions. The bench said, “It would be a very sad day if the Supreme Court of this country started entertaining Article 32 writ petitions on the same subject.After such a clear decision, Vodafone Idea criticized the legal fraternity to re -attach the government.Advocate Gaurav Gupta said that the May 19 order confirmed that Agri dues were final. He said that any attempt to offer relief by the government will now be against the law established by the Supreme Court. Advocate Ashish Dixit said, “Once an issue is set by the Supreme Court, the options for both the company and the government are limited, as the executive cannot override the law established by the Supreme Court.”Senior advocate Mukul Rohtgi, who represented the Vodafone idea in the court, admitted during the hearing that all legal routes including reviews and therapeutic petitions were over. He requested the court to allow the government to consider the representation of the company. But the bench reminded her, “If the government wants to help you, we are not coming in the way; who is preventing them from keeping an eye on representation?”However, Rohtgi admitted that the government had refused to do so, citing the binding nature of the earlier decisions of the court. The Solicitor General also confirmed that the executive was unable to intervene due to the 2019 decisions and its disability.Despite this, Mondra’s remarks suggested that Vodafone kept expecting some resolve from the Center. Legal experts criticized it as a potential misleading for the public and shareholders.Chief Justice BR Gavai had recently warned against deformation of judicial comments, given that such misinformation could negatively affect the public understanding of court decisions.Advocate Mohit Paul reminded that the issue of the AGR definition was set in October 2019, when the Supreme Court ruled that it included all revenue, telecommunications or otherwise, and confirmed that Telcos would have to pay Rs 1.56 trillion, including punishment and interest.Since then, all legal efforts, including reviews and remedial petitions, were rejected. When Telkos filed a new round of Article 32 writ petitions in May 2025, the Supreme Court did not entertain them, stating that “everything has its limits”.Rohtgi’s final attempt to withdraw the petition or insert at least one statement allows the petitioners to contact the government.