Bharti Hexacom Gets ₹473.7 Crore Relief As Bombay HC Quashes DoT Spectrum Charge Demand

Bharti Hexacom, the listed subsidiary of Bharti Airtel, has secured ₹473.7 crore in relief after the Bombay High Court set aside a one-time spectrum charge (OTSC) demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) against it.

The relief forms part of a broader judgment in which the court quashed OTSC demands against both Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea, striking down the government's attempt to apply spectrum charges on a retrospective basis.

How The Demand Came About

The roots of the dispute go back to 2012, when the government introduced a one-time spectrum charge on holdings exceeding 6.2 MHz. The Department of Telecommunications then sought to apply this charge retrospectively from 1 July 2008.

Airtel received a demand notice on 8 January 2013, initially for ₹5,201.2 crore, later revised to ₹8,414 crore in 2018. Of this total, ₹473.7 crore related specifically to Bharti Hexacom's spectrum holdings in the Rajasthan and North East Service Area circles.

Airtel challenged the demand before the Bombay High Court. A division bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain allowed the petition on 8 June 2026, quashing the demand notices. It also directed authorities to release the bank guarantees the companies had provided during the course of the litigation.

The Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning was based on a number of grounds. The court noted that the government did not have any identifiable statutory or contractual power to impose the charge retrospectively. The bench noted that telecom licences are contractual in nature and that the financial terms attached to them cannot be altered unilaterally after the operators have accepted and acted upon those terms.

Telecom operators had already paid for their spectrum under the revenue-sharing model framed in the National Telecom Policy of 1999, the bench pointed out, adding that levying an extra charge years after the original contract was signed was essentially changing the terms of the contract after the fact.

Also Read - Fertiliser Ministry Seeks Higher Subsidy As Iran War Pushes Up Costs

The government’s argument that revenue maximisation justified the levy was rejected by the court, which said that this cannot be equated with public interest and does not provide legal basis to impose charges without proper authority. The bench also disagreed with the Madras High Court which had ruled on a similar issue earlier and held that the retrospective demands had no legal backing.

Source:

NDTV Profit