Madras High Court Opens Door for Key Witnesses in Dayanidhi Maran's BSNL Telecom Scandal Trial

In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring a fair trial , the Madras High Court has partially allowed petitions by former Union Minister Dayanidhi Maran and co-accused S. Kannan. The court directed the trial judge to summon critical witnesses—including the Telecom Secretary and a former CBI Inspector—as court witnesses under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (equivalent to Section 311 CrPC ). This comes in a long-running CBI corruption case alleging misuse of high-end BSNL telecom facilities between 2004 and 2007 .

Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira delivered the common order on March 25, 2026 , in seven consolidated criminal original petitions challenging a trial court dismissal dated October 10, 2025 .

Roots of the Controversy: A Minister's Phone Lines Under Scrutiny

The case stems from allegations that Dayanidhi Maran, then Minister of Communications and Information Technology (MoCIT), conspired with BSNL officials and Sun TV's Chief Technical Officer S. Kannan to install hundreds of unauthorized telephone lines, ISDN connections, broadband leased lines, optical fiber, and video conferencing setups at his residences in Chennai and Delhi. These "service category" facilities—meant for official use—allegedly benefited Sun TV Network operations, causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 1.78 crores to BSNL and MTNL .

Prosecuted under IPC Sections 120B (conspiracy) , 409 (criminal breach of trust) , 467/471 (forgery) , 477A (falsification of accounts) , and PC Act Sections 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d)/13(2) , the trial in Special Court No. II (Chennai) has seen 98 prosecution witnesses and 418 exhibits. After prosecution evidence closed partially, the accused sought to summon witnesses and documents to counter claims of excess, unauthorized usage.

Petitioners' Push: Unexamined Witnesses Hold the Key

Dayanidhi Maran (A3) and S. Kannan (A6) argued the prosecution cherry-picked evidence, omitting vital witnesses like Rakesh Kumar Somani (AGM Vigilance, BSNL ; ALW-48), whose four vigilance reports allegedly exonerate them by confirming no irregularities. They highlighted the need for Telecom Secretary to clarify MoCIT entitlements (distinct from general ministers), Mohan Lal Sindhi (LW-34) on policy, A. Mahalingam (LW-2), and CBI Inspector T. Sathyamurthy (preliminary enquiry IO).

Counsel stressed chain-of-custody gaps in documents collected via BSNL Vigilance (PW-36 A. Gunasekaran) and demanded preliminary enquiry materials (PE-5[A]/2011) plus correspondences. Citing prior court orders barring reinvestigation, they invoked Section 348 BNSS for a " just decision ," warning that defense summoning risked hostility without cross-examination rights.

CBI 's Defense: No Lacunae, Just Procedural Overreach

Special PP N. Baaskaran countered that unexamined listed witnesses (LWs) could be called by defense, with Section 154 Evidence Act allowing cross if hostile. He dismissed entitlement distinctions, citing Office Memo (Ex.P.343) capping Union Ministers uniformly, and Rule 435 Telegraph Rules limited to departmental use.

Preliminary enquiry report was deemed confidential ( Section 125 Evidence Act ), its documents already disclosed, and electronic records certified under Section 65B . CBI urged dismissal to prevent " filling lacunae ," relying on Sidhartha Vashisht@Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) for limited disclosure rights.

Judicial Tightrope: Balancing Fairness and Finality

Justice Chandira meticulously parsed precedents, emphasizing courts' participatory role. Drawing from Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 178), the court reiterated Section 348 BNSS's wide, stage-agnostic power—discretionary yet obligatory if "essential to just decision ." Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat ((2004) 4 SCC 158) was invoked for active judicial monitoring against prosecutorial remissness, while Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India stressed truth-discovery over party lapses.

Rejecting blanket confidentiality, the court mandated production of BSNL correspondences for chain-of-custody clarity ( P. Ponnusamy v. State of TN , 2023), allowing prosecution objections. Preliminary materials warranted inspection, per Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate (2024), absent public interest privilege claims.

Mahalingam and Sindhi summons were denied—they remain defense options—but Telecom Secretary's testimony was deemed "imperative" for MoCIT-specific entitlements, as PW-60's evidence was general.

Key Observations

"The determinative factor... is not the stage of the proceedings... but whether the evidence sought to be adduced would assist the Court in arriving at a just and effective adjudication of the issues arising in the trial."

"In matters relating to departmental facilities... the person best placed to clarify the administrative framework... would be the Secretary (Telecom)."

"The chain of custody of documents and electronic records is not a mere procedural formality, but has a direct bearing on the evidentiary value and reliability of such materials."

"The accused cannot claim an unfettered right to disclosure of all internal materials of investigation... [but] considerations of fairness may warrant disclosure... except those detrimental to public interest."

Verdict Delivered: Partial Victory, Trial Expedited

Six petitions succeeded: summoning Telecom Secretary (Crl.OP 30522), Somani (30541), Sathyamurthy (30527); producing Gunasekaran (30531) and Sathyamurthy correspondences (30538); preliminary enquiry materials (30534). Crl.OP 30523 (Mahalingam/Sindhi) dismissed.

The court set aside impugned dismissals, directing expedited trial given the 2004-07 origins. As noted in reports, this clarifies "entitlement to telecom facilities lies at the heart of the allegations," potentially reshaping defenses in official perk misuse cases and reinforcing disclosure for fair trials.