The Union Cabinet has approved of its recommendation to file the reference in context of the supreme Court?s verdict in the 2G case
DoT had made this recommendation on the basis that the court had considered only the 122 licences issued on or after January 10, 2008 and had not mentioned the other licences granted under a similar policy. In this context, therefore, the legality of the licences issued earlier came into question.
DoT added that it was unclear whether, as per the judgment, the dual technology licences issued in 2008 were illegal or not.
Also, it said that in view of the judgment, it should be clarified whether any priority could be given to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India?s (TRAI) recommendations pertaining to spectrum, even at a price determined at the auctions.
Thirdly, DoT said that an opinion ought to be taken on whether a ceiling on spectrum acquisition, as recommended by the regulator, is required.
This was part of DoT?s efforts to help the sector get back on its feet post the Supreme Court?s verdict. Besides this, it had also recommended filing a review petition and gaining clarity on certain operational issues.
Meanwhile, the Union Cabinet, which had viewed the proposal, could not reach a concensus as to whether a Presidential reference was required.
So, the Cabinet had approached the Attorney-General of India for his opinion on this subject.
Thereafter, Attorney-General Goolam Vahanvati was reportedly in agreement with the government filing a presidential reference in this context.
Further, it is believed that the presidential reference approved by Vahanvati would ask the Supreme Court to explain whether licences obtained in 1994, as well as those bagged after 1994 and before 2007 would fall under the purview of the verdict.
The reference may also touch upon dual technology licences, whether the spectrum held by the companies facing licence cancellation ought to be taken back, whether incumbents will have to shell out a particular amount for the spectrum in a retrospective manner, the extent to which courts can take a policy-related decision and whether an auction is the best means to allocate spectrum.
