The Madras High Court on March 25 directed issuance of summons to the Union Telecom Secretary as a court witness in the telecom misuse case against former Union Minister Dayanidhi Maran [S Kannan Vs State]..Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said that the official’s testimony is essential to determine the scope of telecom facilities permissible to a minister.The Court passed the order while partly allowing a batch of petitions filed by Maran and others against a trial court’s refusal to summon witnesses and call for documents in the case..The Court observed that the question of entitlement to telecom facilities lies at the heart of the allegations of misuse. It noted that in matters involving departmental privileges and service category connections, clarity on the governing administrative framework is necessary for a proper adjudication of the issues."This Court is of the view that the materials collected during the preliminary enquiry may, in appropriate circumstances, be of assistance to the defence in understanding the genesis of the prosecution case. While the accused cannot claim an unfettered right to disclosure of all internal materials of investigation, the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that such documents may have a bearing on the background in which the prosecution came to be instituted," the Court said..Apart from the Telecom Secretary, the Court also permitted summoning of two other key individuals:Rakesh Kumar Somani, a BSNL vigilance official whose reports form part of the prosecution case; andSathyamurthy, the officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry and collected documents forming the basis of the FIR.The Court noted that despite being relevant, these witnesses were not examined during trial.It opined that both individuals had a discernible role in the investigation and their evidence could assist in appreciating the material already on record..The case arose from a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheet alleging that between 2004 and 2007, Maran, then Minister of Communications and Information Technology, conspired with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) officials and private individuals to obtain telecom facilities far beyond permissible limits.According to the prosecution, a large number of telephone lines, broadband connections, leased circuits and other telecom infrastructure were installed at private premises and allegedly used for the operations of Maran's Sun TV Network, resulting in a wrongful loss of about ₹1.78 crore to public sector telecom entities.The petitions challenged two orders passed by the special court in Chennai in October 2025, which had partly allowed and partly rejected similar applications. The High Court has now modified those orders, allowing the summoning of certain key witnesses while declining others..However, the High Court declined to summon certain other individuals as court witnesses.It held that the petitioners could examine them as defence witnesses and, if they turn hostile, take recourse to Section 154 of the Evidence Act. The Court accepted the prosecution’s contention that mere apprehension of hostility cannot justify invoking the Court’s power to summon witnesses..On the issue of production of documents, the Court rejected the prosecution’s stand that certain correspondences were unnecessary.Referring to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Court noted that documents forming part of the case were not directly collected by the investigating officer but routed through other officials. In such circumstances, it held that correspondences relating to collection of documents and electronic records could be relevant to establish the chain of custody..Dayanidhi Maran was represented by Senior Advocate T Mohan with advocate M Sneha..Kannan was represented by Senior Advocate R Srinivas with advocate Kavin Bharathan..CBI was represented by Special Public Prosecutor N Baaskaran..[Read Judgment]
