NEW DELHI The Supreme Court has declined to receive an application by the Centre to allow the administrative allocation of spectrum.
The Registrar found the application for clarification misconceived. Spectrum, a scarce natural resource, is allocated to private players only through open, transparent auction. The law was laid down on this issue by the Supreme Court 12 years ago, in the 2G spectrum judgment.
‘Administrative allocation’ of spectrum would have government in sole charge of selecting operators to distribute airwaves, considered a scarce resource.
The Registrar invoked Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to decline the application.
Under this provision of the 2013 Rules, the Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter. The government has 15 days to appeal to the court.
The application filed by the Union government had said spectrum was assigned not only for commercial telecom services but also for discharge of sovereign and public interest functions like security, safety, disaster preparedness,etc.
“There are also sui generis categories of usage owing to the characteristics of the spectrum, or the nature of use, or international practices, etc, in respect of which are auctions are not technically or economically preferred or optimal (eg: in the case of captive, backhaul or one time/sporadic use),” the Centre had submitted in its application.
The February 2012 judgment in the 2G spectrum case had held that “for alienation of scarce natural resources like spectrum, etc, the state must always adopt a method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons may participate in the process”.
Months later, in September 2012, a Constitution Bench, deciding a Presidential Reference based on the 2G spectrum case judgment, had also refused to disturb the judgment.
“Spectrum, which according to the law declared in the 2G case, is to be alienated only by auction and no other method,” the Constitution Bench had held in its judgment on the Reference.