Were you summoned by the Prime Minister and pressurised to give an opinion on revenue-sharing?

(Laughs !) Nobody can summon or pressurise me. If anybody had been saying this it is utter rubbish, flight of somebody's imagination and complete nonsense.

But is it not true that you rushed to Delhi from London to give your now famous opinion?

That's not true. In fact, I was requested by officials of the ministry of external affairs to appear before the Supreme Court on an issue concerning the Haj Committee. The Supreme Court had specially fixed the matter in vacation for June 14, and I flew to Delhi solely for this case.

But I did take twosuitcases full of documents pertaining to the telecom issue to London on May 30. I was on vacation and I thought I would have the time to pour over these voluminous documents. As it is, I was already late in giving my opinion since, in view of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, I had kept the whole issue on hold pending Government intimation to go ahead. Jagmohan informed me in the first week of May that I may proceed to give my opinion.

I made a rough draft in London. It took me eight days of labourious work to go through the technical details.

I arrived in India on June 13, had the draft typed by my secretary on June 14, the same day I also appeared before the Supreme Court. Later I called a meeting of DoT officials on June 15, fine-tuned the draft again and sumbitted my final opinion on June 16 evening to the PMO. I flew back on June 18 to participate in a meeting of the Indo-Canadian legal forum in Canada.

So when did you get to know that the whole issue has escalated into a controversy?

Iwas oblivious to what was going on. Only when I returned to India on July 18 did I become aware of the so-called summoning and pressurising business. I again want to emphasise that nothing of this has happened and the issue is being blown out of proportion.

Were you given a new terms of reference by the PMO, based on which you came out with the revenue-sharing deal?

There has been no new reference from the PMO. There is only one reference - in mid-April 1999, seeking my opinion on the issues relating to the 1994 telecom policy and the 1999 policy. I gave my opinion based on this reference.

Why did you recommend revenue-sharing?

Our approach is that while it is necessary that defaulters should not be rewarded for their defaults and it is also essential that no such impression or signal is transmitted, the approach, however, should not be punitive but remedial. Strict enforcement of the licence conditions, although legally permissible, would in many cases lead to serious financial losses,if not bankruptcy of large Indian companies already in the field. It would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water!

The other option -- termination of licences contemplates takeover of the existing network by the licensor to continue the service for the benefit of the consumer by payment of reasonable compensation. But there will be endless controversy about what is a reasonable compensation.

The new arrangement provides some relief to the licencees without their being absolved from their contractual obligations to pay arrears of licence fees and other dues.

Legally, does the Goverment have the right to switch from one formula to another?

It is well settled that the Government has the right to change its policies from time to time according to the exigencies of the situation and in public interest.

A prior policy or decision of the Government cannot be eternally binding. It is open to the Government to take a policy decision of changing the quantum and methodology of licencefees to be paid by operators by modification of the licence conditions or by making statutory rules, if it is considered that the interest of the general public is better served.

Doesn't your view on revenue-sharing contradict your earlier opinion?

There is no contradiction in my earlier opinion given to the Government on January 6, 1999, and the one given on June 16, 1999. The first opinion was on recovery of dues from private operators wherein, I only incidentally mentioned that retrospective change will be vulnerable to a challenge from unsuccessful bidders. In my later opinion, I have not differed from my stand as I have stated that integration of 1994 licencees into the new policy of 1999 should not be retrospective but from a prospective date.

Why did you recommend extension in the effective date of the licences?

There have apparently been considerable delays in the grant of clearances and permissions on the part of Government agencies and bodies like SACFA, TEC, FIPB, etc. TheBICP report dated November 1998 has highlighted the delays.

Therefore, even assuming that the licensees cannot as of legal right claim extension of the effective dates of their licences, it is but fair and equitable that the effective dates be extended by a reasonable period of six to nine months.

Extension of effective dates by examination of individual cases will be time consuming and delay the accrual of reliefs. Besides, it will be a fertile ground for litigation. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the prevailing situation a broad policy decision to be uniformly applied about the grant of extension of the effective dates is justified. True, this may operate unevenly on some service providers but that does not inject any legal infirmity.

Why was the share lock-in condition imposed?

There have been instances like the Hutchison Max case, and that is why the lock-in clause has been incorporated. It provides that no transfer of shareholding directly or indirectly through subsidiary or holdingcompanies is permissible for a period of five years.

Why has the licence period been extended?

The reason for the extension in licence period from 10 years to 20 years is that in the initial years' investment is higher and the revenue streams are thin. They rise towards the end of the licence period.