State Bank of India v. Union of India 2026 INSC 153 IBC - Telecom Service Providers

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-IBC includes only those tangible or intangible assets within the insolvency framework over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership rights, including all rights and interests therein as recorded in the Balance Sheet (Para 62)- Spectrum allocated to telecom service providers (TSPs) and shown in their books of account as an “asset” cannot be subjected to proceedings under IBC. (Para 69) Telegraph Act, Wireless Telegraphy Act and TRAI Act forms a complete and exhaustive code for all matters relating to telecom sector (Para 66) The statutory regime under IBC cannot be permitted to make inroads into telecom sector and re-write and restructure the rights and liabilities arising out of administration, usage, and transfers of spectrum which operate under exclusive legal regime concerning telecommunications. (Para 67)

Interpretation of Statutes - Conflicts between a general statute and a special statute, or between two statutes each possessing a special character - Principles: (I) Where two enactments are attracted to the same factual matrix, the initial inquiry must be directed towards determining whether either statute is general or special in relation to the subject-matter in issue. This determination is not made in the abstract, but by examining the dominant subject-matter of the statute, viewed through the prism of its legislative intent. An enactment may, depending on the context, operate as a general law for certain purposes and as a special law for others. The optimal outcome is achieved where each statute is allowed to function within its designated sphere, without trenching upon the field occupied by the other. Bearing this in mind, the provisions of both enactments must be scrutinised to assess whether they can be construed in a manner that permits harmonious construction. (II) Where it is evident that one enactment is intended to function as a special law governing a defined subject, while the other is a general law operating in a broader or overlapping domain, the established principle embodied in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant applies. In such circumstances, the general provision must give way to the special provision. (III) In an eventuality where the contestation is between two special enactments, both having non-obstante clauses, the general rule is that later enactment must prevail over the earlier one. (IV) However, this is not an absolute rule. In the event of a conflict between two special acts, the dominant purpose of both statutes would have to be analyzed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other. The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonise, not excise. Hence, where both the enactments have the non obstante clause then in that case, the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject and the dominant purpose for which the special enactment was made and in case the dominant purpose is covered by that contingencies, then notwithstanding that the Act might have come at a later point of time still the intention can be ascertained by looking to the objects and reasons. (Para 64)

Spectrum - Spectrum is vested and secured in the custody of the Central Government not as a property but as the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and operating telecommunication systems, and for granting licences. (Para 18)

Constitution of India - Article 14 - While State largesse must be distributed in conformity with Article 14, ensuring fairness, transparency and adequate compensation to the public, it does not translate into transfer of ownership or creation of proprietary rights in favour of the licensee. . Spectrum access is in the nature of State largesse The grant of a telecom licence, including the right to use spectrum, does not effect a transfer of ownership or proprietary interest. What is conferred is a limited, conditional and revocable privilege to use spectrum for specified purposes and for a defined duration. (Para 33)