Supreme Court Permits Centre to Re-examine ₹5,606 Cr AGR Demand on Vodafone Idea

Today (October 27, 2025), while hearing a writ petition filed by Vodafone India against the additional demand of the Department of Telecommunications towards AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue) dues worth ₹5,606 of the 2016-17 period, the Supreme Court (SC) of India allowed the Centre to reconsider the AGR demands raised against Vodafone Idea. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Union, informed the top Court bench that there is a huge change in the circumstances of the case as the government has infused 49% equity in the company. He added, “The government's interest is public interest. There are 20 crore consumers. If this company is to suffer, it would lead to issues for consumers.” 

Considering this, the SC bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said, “The SG on instructions states that taking into consideration the change in circumstances, that is the Government of India acquiring 49 % equity, and the larger aspect that 20 crores customers utilising the service of the petitioner, the Union is willing to examine the issues raised by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the government has agreed to reconsider it and take an appropriate decision, if the Court so permits.” The bench further opined, “Taking into consideration the status of the case now, the government has infused substantial equity into the company, and further, that the issue involved is likely to have a direct bearing on the interests of 20 crores customers, we see no issue in the Union reconsidering the issue and taking an appropriate decision.”

The SC bench also clarified, “that this is a matter within the policy domain of the Union. If the Union, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Union, in the larger interest, reconciles the issue, there is no reason as to why that Union should be prevented from doing, with that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition…We clarify that the order is passed only in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”