The Supreme Court docket immediately(August 21) put aside the Madras High Court’s order directing the Trial Court docket to summon the Union Telecom Secretary as a courtroom witness in a felony case towards DMK MP and former Union Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran regarding alleged misuse of BSNL telecom services. Nonetheless, the Court docket has reserved the suitable of Maran to summon the Secretary as a defence witness.
This comes after the CBI, via Further Solicitor Basic SV Raju, approached the Supreme Court docket difficult the order. When the matter was first taken up on August 10, a bench comprising Justice Okay.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli requested whether or not the CBI would have any objection if the Telecom Secretary is summoned as a defence witness.
Based mostly on ASG Raju’s directions, the Court docket directed that the Telecom Secretary could also be examined as a defence witness. Nonetheless, Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Nalin Kohli objected to the Telecom Secretary being thought of as a defence witness. Luthra mentioned the secretary isn’t a defence witness and urged that the Excessive Court docket’s order be not stayed. He mentioned: “He’s a courtroom’s witness, which might be acceptable, because the courtroom can put to him what’s the process and what’s the norm and are available to a willpower. It could be very onerous on me.”
However the Court docket refused to listen to any objections, and requested Luthra: “Are you taking this feature [of considering the secretary as defence witness] or not?”
After temporary arguments, the Court docket ordered: “Heard Mr Shri Raju, discovered Further Solicitor Basic for petitioner, Shri Siddharth Luthra, senior advocate for the only respondent. Within the particular go away petition, we’re solely involved with the path of the Excessive Court docket directing Secretary Telecom as a courtroom witness. The trial courtroom by its order dated 10 October 2025 rejected the prayer of the respondent to summon the Secretary, Telecom, because the courtroom witness; the Excessive Court docket reserved the mentioned order. Having heard discovered counsels, we’re of the opinion that there’s justification given for overruling the thought of order of the Trial Court docket declining to summon the Secretary, Telecom, as a courtroom witness. When the matter got here up on August 10, we handed the next order. ..
The first submission is that as far as the Secretary Telecom, being summoned as a courtroom witness, shall be sustained or alternatively, within the occasion courtroom not settle for the mentioned stand, they might study Secretary, Telecom as defence witness. Now that we’re inclined to revive the order of the Trial Court docket, we allow the respondent to summon the Secretary Telecom as a defence witness as indicated in our August 10 order. We put aside the Excessive Court docket’s order and restore the Trial Court docket’s order. We allow the respondent to have the choice to summon the Secretary, Telecom, as a defence witness if he so needs.”
The problem considerations the Madras Excessive Court docket’s order directing the trial courtroom to look at the Telecom Secretary underneath Part 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), equivalent to Part 311 of the Code of Legal Process (CrPC). The Excessive Court docket held that the Secretary’s proof was related to figuring out whether or not Maran, who was Minister of Communications and Data Expertise between 2004 and 2007, was entitled to service-category telecom connections in the course of the related interval.
The Excessive Court docket famous that prosecution witness Rita Achary had spoken in regards to the normal coverage relevant to Union Ministers however had not particularly addressed the executive privileges relevant to the Minister heading the involved division. It held that the Telecom Secretary, because the senior-most government authority within the Division of Communications, was greatest positioned to make clear the relevant administrative framework.
It additionally famous that statements recorded underneath Part 161 CrPC and replies issued pursuant to them had been permitted by the Telecom Secretary. It referred to his communication dated October 3, 2007, during which he had referred to the existence of an inordinately excessive variety of telecom connections.
The Excessive Court docket held that Part 348 BNSS isn’t meant to permit both celebration to fill lacunae in its case. On the similar time, it held that the supply allows the courtroom to summon an individual as a courtroom witness the place the individual’s proof could have a bearing on the problems arising for willpower and could also be essential to arrive on the reality.
The CBI chargesheet alleges that Maran, in conspiracy with senior BSNL officers and individuals related to Solar TV Community, dishonestly procured and continued to make use of numerous telecom services at his residences in Chennai and New Delhi underneath the BSNL “Service Class”.
The prosecution alleges that the services included tons of of phone traces, ISDN-PRA/BRA connections, broadband and web leased circuits, cell connections, optical fibre connectivity, leased traces and video conferencing programs. It additional alleges that BSNL officers manipulated data by exhibiting BSNL authorities as subscribers whereas putting in connections at non-public premises, transformed non-public connections into service-category connections and failed to lift payments or preserve data of subsequently cancelled payments. The alleged conduct resulted in a wrongful loss estimated at about Rs.1.78 crore to public sector telecom entities, together with BSNL and MTNL, with corresponding wrongful acquire to non-public beneficiaries, notably Solar TV Community, in response to the chargesheet.
The chargesheet alleges offences underneath Sections 120B, 409, 467, 471 and 477A of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Excessive Court docket additionally allowed Maran’s plea in search of examination of Rakesh Kumar Somani, AGM (Vigilance), BSNL, and T. Sathyamurthy, then an Inspector of Police, CBI, as courtroom witnesses. It discovered their proof related and essential for the simply choice of the case. It rejected, nevertheless, Maran’s request to summon A. Mahalingam and Mohan Lal Sindhi as courtroom witnesses. The Excessive Court docket held that they may as an alternative be examined as defence witnesses.
The Excessive Court docket’s order famous that the prosecution had examined 98 witnesses and marked 418 reveals however had not examined Somani or marked 4 Vigilance experiences. Maran had argued that the experiences had been related to his defence as they indicated that there was no irregularity within the set up of extra phone traces and different consequential installations at his residence or camp workplace.
The Excessive Court docket in the end directed the Trial Court docket to make each endeavour to expedite the trial, noting that the allegations relate to 2004-2007 and that the trial had already progressed considerably.
Case Particulars: THE STATE Vs DAYANIDHI MARAN|SLP(Crl) No. 13933/2026 Diary No. 40341 / 2026
