New Delhi, October 27: The Supreme Court of India gave the Central government permission to look over and settle Vodafone Idea’s (Vi) overdue Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) payments of ₹5,606 crore for the financial year 2016–17. This was a huge relief for the telecom giant, which is in a lot of debt.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, was hearing Vodafone’s writ petition challenging the Department of Telecommunications’ (DoT) additional AGR demand for that period. The company argued that the fresh demand was unsustainable, as all liabilities had already been finalized under the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 AGR judgment.
Government to Reassess AGR Demand
During the hearing, Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General for the Centre, told the court that the government, which now owns 49% of Vodafone Idea, had promised to look into the matter.
Considering Vodafone’s large customer base of over 20 crore subscribers, the Union said it was ready to reassess the dues in light of the changed circumstances.
The bench recorded:
“Taking into consideration the government’s 49% equity infusion and the interests of 20 crore customers, we see no issue in the Union reconsidering the issue and taking an appropriate decision.”
The court also clarified that the decision was passed based on the peculiar facts of this case and falls under the policy domain of the Union government.
Vodafone’s Petition and AGR Dispute Background
Vodafone Idea fought the DoT’s new demand of ₹5,606 crore for the years 2016–17, saying that it comprised fines and interest that had already been paid. The corporation asked for a writ requiring the DoT to review and settle all AGR payments up to FY 2016–17, as the Deduction Verification Guidelines said they should do by February 3, 2020.
The telecom operator argued that its dues had been “crystallized” in 2020, and any new demands were contrary to the Supreme Court’s final judgment on the matter.
In October 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the DoT’s meaning of AGR, which included non-core revenues. This caused the telecom industry as a whole to have huge debts of more than ₹1.4 lakh crore. The court gave companies a 10-year window to pay off their debts in 2020.
Centre’s Stake and Customer Impact
This case was different because the government held almost half of Vodafone Idea. Solicitor General Mehta emphasized that the Centre is now a direct stakeholder in the company’s survival and that “some solution may have to be found out” for the long-term stability of the telecom sector.
Which could have an impact on 20 crore Indian people, they said. That the outcome might have an effect on 20 crore Indian users, they said.
Stock Market Reaction: Vodafone Idea and Indus Towers Surge
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Vodafone Idea shares surged nearly 9.5%, reaching ₹10.54 apiece during Monday’s noon session—its highest level since September 2024. The stock was last seen trading 5.1% higher at ₹10.14 on the NSE, buoyed by investor optimism over the potential relief in AGR dues.
Indus Towers, which provides critical network infrastructure to Vodafone Idea, also benefited, with its shares rising 4.3% to ₹377.20 apiece. Analysts said a favorable policy outcome for Vi could improve Indus Towers’ revenue outlook.
Legal History of the AGR Case
This development comes after years of legal battles. Vodafone and other telecom companies had tried before, but in May 2025, the Supreme Court said no to their requests to waive interest and penalties on AGR duties. The bench then told Vodafone they were wrong to bring up old cases again after the cases had already been decided, and they turned down requests to fix the problems.
However, the current order acknowledges a change in circumstances, with the government’s equity infusion and the public interest in ensuring telecom service continuity.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court made it clear that the Union government still has the power to review and settle problems within the limits of its policies, even though the AGR liabilities still stand.
The court said, “There is no reason why the Union should be stopped from resolving the issue in the larger interest if it can do so in the unique facts and circumstances.”