The Supreme Court on August 21 set aside a Madras High Court order directing the trial court to summon the Union Telecom Secretary as a court witness in the criminal case against DMK MP and former Union Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran concerning the alleged misuse of BSNL telecom facilities.
A Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli restored the trial court’s October 10, 2025 order, which had rejected Maran’s request to summon the Telecom Secretary as a court witness. However, the Court permitted Maran to exercise the option of examining the Secretary as a defence witness.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, challenged the High Court’s direction. During the hearing on August 10, the Court had asked whether the CBI would object to the Telecom Secretary being examined as a defence witness. On instructions, ASG Raju agreed to the option.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, however, opposed treating the Secretary as a defence witness, arguing that he was appropriately a court witness who could assist the court in understanding the applicable procedures and norms.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that there was no justification for interfering with the trial court’s considered decision not to summon the Secretary as a court witness. It consequently set aside the High Court order and restored the trial court’s order, while expressly permitting Maran to summon the Secretary as a defence witness.
The High Court had invoked Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC, holding that the Telecom Secretary’s evidence could assist in determining whether Maran was entitled to service-category telecom connections during his tenure as Communications Minister from 2004 to 2007.
The High Court had observed that a prosecution witness had spoken about the general policy applicable to Union Ministers but had not specifically addressed the privileges available to the Minister heading the Telecom Department. It considered the Telecom Secretary, as the department’s senior-most executive authority, best placed to clarify the administrative framework.
The CBI chargesheet alleges that Maran, in conspiracy with senior BSNL officials and persons associated with Sun TV Network, procured and continued to use numerous telecom facilities at his residences in Chennai and New Delhi under the BSNL “Service Category”. These allegedly included telephone lines, ISDN connections, broadband facilities, leased circuits, mobile connections and optical fibre connectivity.
According to the prosecution, the alleged manipulation of BSNL records and failure to raise bills caused a wrongful loss of approximately Rs1.78 crore to public sector telecom entities, including BSNL and MTNL.
The chargesheet invokes provisions of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery and corruption-related offences.
The High Court had also permitted the examination of two other individuals as court witnesses, while allowing certain other persons to be examined as defence witnesses. It had directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, noting that the allegations date back to 2004-2007 and that the trial had already substantially progressed.
The post Dayanidhi Maran BSNL case: Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court order summoning telecom secretary as court witness appeared first on India Legal.