<p>Due to change in its shareholding patterns, erstwhile VSNL cannot be described as performing public function just because of its nature of disseminating information, the Supreme Court has held.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The court noted that the company, now known as Tata Communications Ltd, has lost its monopolistic character. Besides, it provides services for money only.<br /><br />A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and A R Dave rejected the proposition that since the right to impart and receive information is one of the “species” of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, it cannot be said that VSNL is not performing a public function.<br /><br />“All telecom operators are providing commercial service for commercial considerations. Such an activity in substance is no different from the activities of a bookshop selling books. It would be no different from any other amenity which facilitates the dissemination of information or data through any medium,” the bench said.<br /><br />All international telecommunication services were being handled only by the VSNL (Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), prior to its disinvestment in 2002. At present, Tata Group holdings in VSNL are about 50.11 per cent. The name of VSNL was changed to Tata Communications Ltd on January 28, 2008.<br /><br />Hearing a batch of petitions filed by a group of terminated employees, the bench declined to intervene by holding that the company was not amenable to writ jurisdiction.<br /><br />The petitioners contended that since the VSNL was under the complete control of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997 and the Telegraph Act, 1948, the writ petition would lie in cases where the services of the employees were terminated in breach of the rules governing the service conditions of the employees.<br />“A service exclusively provided by the Government of India before disinvestment has the public law element and, therefore, nature of work performed by VSNL/TCL continued to remain the same,” they claimed.<br /><br />However, examining the shareholding patterns in the company, the court said it cannot be declared as a “state or other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Due to change in its shareholding patterns, erstwhile VSNL cannot be described as performing public function just because of its nature of disseminating information, the Supreme Court has held.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The court noted that the company, now known as Tata Communications Ltd, has lost its monopolistic character. Besides, it provides services for money only.<br /><br />A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and A R Dave rejected the proposition that since the right to impart and receive information is one of the “species” of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, it cannot be said that VSNL is not performing a public function.<br /><br />“All telecom operators are providing commercial service for commercial considerations. Such an activity in substance is no different from the activities of a bookshop selling books. It would be no different from any other amenity which facilitates the dissemination of information or data through any medium,” the bench said.<br /><br />All international telecommunication services were being handled only by the VSNL (Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), prior to its disinvestment in 2002. At present, Tata Group holdings in VSNL are about 50.11 per cent. The name of VSNL was changed to Tata Communications Ltd on January 28, 2008.<br /><br />Hearing a batch of petitions filed by a group of terminated employees, the bench declined to intervene by holding that the company was not amenable to writ jurisdiction.<br /><br />The petitioners contended that since the VSNL was under the complete control of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997 and the Telegraph Act, 1948, the writ petition would lie in cases where the services of the employees were terminated in breach of the rules governing the service conditions of the employees.<br />“A service exclusively provided by the Government of India before disinvestment has the public law element and, therefore, nature of work performed by VSNL/TCL continued to remain the same,” they claimed.<br /><br />However, examining the shareholding patterns in the company, the court said it cannot be declared as a “state or other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.</p>
