Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order Allowing Dayanidhi Maran To Summon Telecom Secretary As Court Witness

The Supreme Court today(August 21) set aside the Madras High Court's order directing the Trial Court to summon the Union Telecom Secretary as a court witness in a criminal case against DMK MP and former Union Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran concerning alleged misuse of BSNL telecom facilities. However, the Court has reserved the right of Maran to summon the Secretary as a defence witness.

This comes after the CBI, through Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, approached the Supreme Court challenging the order. When the matter was first taken up on August 10, a bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli asked whether the CBI would have any objection if the Telecom Secretary is summoned as a defence witness.

Based on ASG Raju's instructions, the Court directed that the Telecom Secretary may be examined as a defence witness. However, Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Nalin Kohli objected to the Telecom Secretary being considered as a defence witness. Luthra said the secretary is not a defence witness and urged that the High Court's order be not stayed. He said: "He is a court's witness, which would be appropriate, as the court can put to him what is the procedure and what is the norm and come to a determination. It would be very onerous on me."

But the Court refused to hear any objections, and asked Luthra: "Are you taking this option [of considering the secretary as defence witness] or not?"

After brief arguments, the Court ordered: "Heard Mr Shri Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General for petitioner, Shri Siddharth Luthra, senior advocate for the sole respondent. In the special leave petition, we are only concerned with the direction of the High Court directing Secretary Telecom as a court witness. The trial court by its order dated 10 October 2025 rejected the prayer of the respondent to summon the Secretary, Telecom, as the court witness; the High Court reserved the said order. Having heard learned counsels, we are of the opinion that there is justification given for overruling the considered order of the Trial Court declining to summon the Secretary, Telecom, as a court witness. When the matter came up on August 10, we passed the following order. ..

The primary submission is that so far as the Secretary Telecom, being summoned as a court witness, shall be sustained or alternatively, in the event court not accept the said stand, they would examine Secretary, Telecom as defence witness. Now that we are inclined to restore the order of the Trial Court, we permit the respondent to summon the Secretary Telecom as a defence witness as indicated in our August 10 order. We set aside the High Court's order and restore the Trial Court's order. We permit the respondent to have the option to summon the Secretary, Telecom, as a defence witness if he so desires."

The challenge concerns the Madras High Court's order directing the trial court to examine the Telecom Secretary under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The High Court held that the Secretary's evidence was relevant to determining whether Maran, who was Minister of Communications and Information Technology between 2004 and 2007, was entitled to service-category telecom connections during the relevant period.

The High Court noted that prosecution witness Rita Achary had spoken about the general policy applicable to Union Ministers but had not specifically addressed the administrative privileges applicable to the Minister heading the concerned department. It held that the Telecom Secretary, as the senior-most executive authority in the Department of Communications, was best placed to clarify the applicable administrative framework.

It also noted that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and replies issued pursuant to them had been approved by the Telecom Secretary. It referred to his communication dated October 3, 2007, in which he had referred to the existence of an inordinately high number of telecom connections.

The High Court held that Section 348 BNSS is not intended to allow either party to fill lacunae in its case. At the same time, it held that the provision enables the court to summon a person as a court witness where the person's evidence may have a bearing on the issues arising for determination and may be necessary to arrive at the truth.

The CBI chargesheet alleges that Maran, in conspiracy with senior BSNL officials and persons associated with Sun TV Network, dishonestly procured and continued to use a large number of telecom facilities at his residences in Chennai and New Delhi under the BSNL “Service Category”.

The prosecution alleges that the facilities included hundreds of telephone lines, ISDN-PRA/BRA connections, broadband and internet leased circuits, mobile connections, optical fibre connectivity, leased lines and video conferencing systems. It further alleges that BSNL officials manipulated records by showing BSNL authorities as subscribers while installing connections at private premises, converted private connections into service-category connections and failed to raise bills or maintain records of subsequently cancelled bills. The alleged conduct resulted in a wrongful loss estimated at about Rs.1.78 crore to public sector telecom entities, including BSNL and MTNL, with corresponding wrongful gain to private beneficiaries, particularly Sun TV Network, according to the chargesheet.

The chargesheet alleges offences under 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 High Court also allowed Maran's plea seeking examination of Rakesh Kumar Somani, AGM (Vigilance), BSNL, and T. Sathyamurthy, then an Inspector of Police, CBI, as court witnesses. It found their evidence relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case. It rejected, however, Maran's request to summon A. Mahalingam and Mohan Lal Sindhi as court witnesses. The High Court held that they could instead be examined as defence witnesses.