SC closes govt petition against GMR operation of Nagpur int’l airport
Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, acting in his capacity as an officer of the court, informed a four-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud that there were no valid grounds to pursue the petition.
The Supreme Court on Friday closed a curative petition filed by the Union government and the Airports Authority of India (AAI), seeking a reconsideration of its 2022 judgment which allowed the GMR Group to manage and operate Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.
Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, acting in his capacity as an officer of the court, informed a four-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud that there were no valid grounds to pursue the petition. He stated that, after a “dispassionate” review of the matter, as requested earlier by the court, he found no basis under the curative jurisdiction to challenge the ruling.
“There was a view previously that the ground of bias could be pressed, but I am clear that such a ground can never be pressed against an order of this court,” clarified Mehta. He also emphasised that he did not consult the government on this matter, as his duty was to provide an independent opinion to the court.
The bench, also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai and JK Maheshwari, acknowledged Mehta’s professional stance and concluded the proceedings, noting that the curative petition did not meet the stringent criteria required for such cases, including bias, lack of hearing, or any analogous grounds.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for GMR Airports.
The original dispute dates back to May 2022, when the Supreme Court upheld a Bombay high court ruling that favored GMR Airports in a protracted legal battle. MIHAN India Ltd (Multi-Modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur), a joint venture tasked with managing the Nagpur airport project, had sought to cancel a contract awarded to GMR in 2019 for the airport’s upgradation and operation. MIHAN argued that the bid acceptance letter issued to GMR in March 2019 was not a formal award of the contract, but the high court rejected this claim, calling the cancellation of the contract unjustified.
The Supreme Court, in its 2022 judgment, concurred with the Bombay high court, ruling that government-awarded contracts must adhere to principles of fairness and equality, and upheld the decision to reinstate GMR’s contract.
In its 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court bench, then comprising justices Vineet Saran (since retired) and JK Maheshwari, observed that the high court’s order was based on sound reasoning and legal analysis. “We are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the high court allowing the writ petition are in accordance with law. Those findings do not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this court in the exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,” the bench had ruled.
The May 9, 2022 judgment emphasised that contracts awarded by government bodies must be rooted in the principles of fairness, equality, and rule of law. It rejected MIHAN’s argument that the acceptance of GMR’s bid was conditional upon approval from the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation, thus quashing the cancellation attempt.
In wrapping up Friday’s proceedings, the bench noted the fairness of Mehta’s dispassionate view and recorded that the Centre and AAI had chosen not to press the petition due to the absence of grounds to invoke curative jurisdiction. However, the bench clarified that a specific observation in its 2022 ruling, which stated that the Centre or AAI were not necessary parties in such cases, would not serve as a precedent in future matters. This clarification ensures that the parties involved will not be necessarily bound by the same conclusion in subsequent cases of a similar nature.
