Vodafone Idea share price falls for second consecutive day. Here's why
Vodafone Idea share price continues to fall for second consecutive day on Wednesday after the telecom company said it is actively in discussions with the central government to seek relief regarding its long-pending Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues.
Vodafone Idea stock fell over 1.33 per cent in early trades, however, recovered quickly rising nearly a per cent. At 9:55 am, the stock was trading at ₹ 6.68 apiece on National Stock Exchange (NSE).
On Tuesday, Vodafone Idea shares saw a significant decline up to 4 per cent to close at ₹ 6.77.
Vodafone Idea, currently grappling with financial difficulties, is in discussions with banks to secure debt funding aimed at supporting its long-term growth, according to CEO Akshaya Moondra. He noted that lenders would require transparency regarding the company's outstanding dues to the government before considering any loan approvals.
Moondra further stated that the telecom firm is still negotiating with the central government for a practical solution to the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) issue. He stressed that since the matter falls under policy, the government should have complete discretion to offer relief, without being constrained by judicial oversight.
Highlighting the financial strain on the company, Moondra cited India's low Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) and unsustainable data tariffs as major challenges. He advocated for a pricing structure where high data consumers pay more, emphasizing that the sector's returns currently fail to meet capital costs.
This comes after a significant blow from the Supreme Court, which recently denied the company's plea for relief, intensifying the crisis for the debt-laden operator.
Vodafone Idea is burdened with AGR dues of nearly ₹ 30,000 crore and continues to lose market share. According to TRAI data, the company lost 6.47 lakh subscribers in April, reducing its total user base to 20.47 crore.
Before the Supreme Court ruling, the company had urgently appealed to the telecom department, warning that without timely support from the government, it may not be able to continue operations beyond FY26.
Despite narrowing its net loss to ₹ 7,166.1 crore in Q4 FY25, Vodafone Idea remains reliant on external funding. Its board has recently approved a fundraising plan of up to ₹ 20,000 crore, which is subject to shareholder and regulatory approval.
Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, not Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Divorce: Permanent alimony for wife revised by 2.5 times up by SC within 9 years of HC fixing it Rs 20,000 per month
The Supreme Court of India on May 29, 2025, ordered a husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month, which is 2.5 times the permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Earlier, the permanent alimony amount fixed by the Calcutta High Court in 2016 was Rs 20,000, with an increase of 5% every three years. The Supreme Court said: 'The wife, who in this case has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.' Moreover, the Supreme Court also upheld the Calcutta High Court order, which asked the husband to redeem the home loan taken on the house and transfer the title deed to his former wife's name. The husband did not fight this point and duly complied with the order, but he challenged the fact of paying alimony for both his wife and son. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like When the Camera Clicked at the Worst Possible Time Read More Undo He, however, contended that his son is now 26 years old and is non-dependent. The husband also said that while it's true his income level has increased since the time of their divorce , he has since then remarried, and he has ageing parents also to take care of. After hearing and analysing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court said that, while they can't direct the husband to pay maintenance to his son, the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with the law. Hence, the Supreme Court accepted the husband's lawyer's contention about paying child maintenance but rejected his reservations about paying a higher alimony to the wife. Live Events The SC also said: 'Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount.' Read below to understand the rationale behind the Supreme Court's decision to more than double the monthly permanent alimony, along with the legal reasoning behind it. How did this alimony case go on for 17 years? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here's a timeline of events: June 18, 1997: The couple married following Hindu ceremonies. August 5, 1998: A son was born to the newly married couple. July 2008: The husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the wife. Subsequently, the wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. January 14, 2010: The Trial Court, by order dated January 14, 2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month, along with Rs 10,000 for litigation expenses, to the wife. March 28, 2014: The wife then instituted a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated March 28, 2014, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month to the wife and Rs 6,000 per month to the minor son, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. May 14, 2015: Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, by order dated May 14, 2015, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month. January 10, 2016: The Trial Court, vide order dated January 1, 2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. July 14, 2016: Subsequently, by order dated July 14, 2016, the High Court noted that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs 69,000 and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs 20,000 per month. June 25, 2019: The High Court, by order dated June 25, 2019, allowed the husband's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. February 20, 2023: The Supreme Court of India issued a notice confined to the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to the wife. November 7, 2023: By interim order dated November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs 75,000 with effect from November 1, 2023. The husband subsequently entered the appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order. May 29, 2025: The Supreme Court's final judgement ordered the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Legal arguments used by husband and wife The wife asks, why is she getting Rs 20,000 per month as alimony when her former husband is earning Rs 4 lakh per month? The former wife's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs 20,000 per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs 4,00,000 and the quantum of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during marriage.' The husband counters his former wife's argument by saying he has to support expenses for his second marriage and old parents The husband's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs 1,64,039, earned from his employment. He has submitted salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs 1,72,088 and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.' What did the Supreme Court of India say? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here are the details: Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount. The Supreme Court's final judgement: Pay former wife Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony The Supreme Court said: In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs 50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs 50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above. Nikita Anand, Partner at Magnus Legal Services LLP, says: 'Maintenance is not charity but a right that must be calibrated to genuine financial realities and the lifestyle disruption caused by marital breakdown. The days of token alimony amounts may well be numbered.' Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "This is a classic case where alimony is granted by default irrespective of the outcome of the main divorce case. In the current scenario, parties had been separated since 2008 where maintenance to wife was granted on the husband's then income. In 2025, the Supreme Court has enhanced permanent alimony to the wife even where cruelty by her had been proven and divorce was granted to the husband on grounds of cruelty. When courts award alimony to wives despite cruelty proven, it leaves the husbands - who approach court for justice - with very little hope. In my opinion, the husband in this case just got freedom, not justice." Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record, Lucknow High Court, says: 'This judgment holds immense significance for women who, after divorce, are left unheard and unsupported when it comes to claiming maintenance from their husbands. Many are forced to run from pillar to post, struggling through the legal system just to secure a rightful order for themselves and their children—simply to survive with dignity in society. Prachi Dubey, Advocate, Delhi High Court, "By increasing the wife's maintenance to Rs 50,000 with incremental raises every second year, the court upheld in past decisions that inflation should be considered while providing spousal support and should be reflective of the standard of living during the marriage. It also made distinction between spousal and child support, maintained the position with respect to the son's rights to inherit, and accepted tacitly that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is a ground for divorce." Singh adds: 'This judgment sets a significant precedent for wives and legitimate children who are often left with no option but to repeatedly approach the court to seek a dignified standard of living and rightful maintenance from their husband or father. It establishes a benchmark that reinforces the court's role as a guardian of justice—offering hope and support to women seeking financial stability and to children who depend on their father's support as they grow. It is indeed a remarkable, meaningful, and much-needed ruling that upholds both fairness and compassion.' Priyanka Desai, Co-founder and Partner, The Fort Circle, says: This judgment clarifies that maintenance can be increased based on the husband's higher income, irrespective of his remarriage. It also holds that financial support is not mandatory for a child who has attained majority. A key takeaway is that the maintenance amounts mentioned in the divorce decree is not set in stone and may be modified based on changed circumstances. Anand says: 'The Supreme Court refused to accept the husband's claimed reduction in income at face value. Despite his assertion that his current monthly net income was Rs 1,64,039, the court considered his "past earnings" and professional background, including his previous employment with a hotel at an annual salary exceeding Rs 21 lakh. This sends a clear warning that spouses cannot deliberately reduce their income or accept lower-paying positions to evade maintenance obligations. The court's approach creates a stronger deterrent against income suppression tactics and encourages a more robust assessment of a party's true earning potential based on their professional trajectory and historical income patterns.' Ruchita Datta, Partner, D&T JURIS, says: "The instant judgement is a reiteration of the fact that while deciding the alimony amount the court needs to weigh in various factors viz., residential rights, wife's status of living before divorce, any medical ailment, dependence of children, Inflation rates etc. In this case, the wife remained unmarried and had no other source of income to sustain herself except the amount which has been provided to her by her husband. So, therefore the amount of ₹20,000 provided to her as an alimony by the High court was enhanced by the Supreme Court to ₹50,000 per month along with 5 % increase after every two years keeping in mind the high cost of living and the prevailing inflation. In my opinion, it is imperative to be pragmatic while deciding the alimony amount as the amount so awarded will not only cater to her basic needs of sustenance but also provide her with a life of dignity and respect."
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
US Supreme Court gives DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The decision allows DOGE, once led by Elon Musk, full access to personal data in the Social Security database while the case moves forward on appeal Bloomberg By Greg Stohr and Zoe Tillman The US Supreme Court gave the Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security information, lifting restrictions a judge said were needed to protect the privacy of millions of Americans. Over three dissents, the high court on Friday granted a Trump administration request to put US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander's order on hold. The decision lets DOGE, the office once led by Elon Musk, have full access to personally identifiable information in the Social Security Administration database while the case proceeds on appeal. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order, which didn't lay out the majority's reasoning. The court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In a separate decision, the high court said a different judge went too far by requiring DOGE officials to testify and produce records to a watchdog group. The order came in a case about whether the DOGE office is covered by US public records laws. The Supreme Court liberals dissented from that decision as well. The cases are the first Supreme Court clashes involving DOGE, the office set up by President Donald Trump to weed out what he says is wasteful spending across the federal government. Sensitive Data Musk recently left his formal government position within the administration and is now publicly feuding with Trump. In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. Hollander said two labor unions and an advocacy group for retired people were likely to succeed on their claims that unfettered access would violate the 1974 Privacy Act. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' the Baltimore-based judge wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander's order allowed DOGE team members access to anonymized data only after completing the type of training and background checks required for SSA employees. She said DOGE employees could get 'discrete, particularized and non-anonymized' information if they submitted a written statement explaining why the information was needed and why anonymous data was insufficient. Hollander also ordered people affiliated with DOGE to delete data they've already acquired. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals kept Hollander's order in place on a 9-6 vote. In her dissent, Jackson said the lower courts had crafted an order 'tailored to the needs of the moment.' She said the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings' by granting the government's request without requiring it to show that it was suffering any harm. 'The 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes,' she wrote. Democracy Forward, the legal-advocacy group that represented the challengers, said it was a 'sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people.' White House spokesperson Liz Huston hailed the decision. 'The Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law,' she said in an email. The case is Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 24A1063. DOGE Records The Supreme Court's action in the records case blocks a Washington federal judge's order for the administration to answer questions, produce documents and make DOGE administrator Amy Gleason available to testify at a deposition. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had authorized the group that brought the public records case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, to gather evidence about DOGE's activities as it fights with the Justice Department over the office's legal status. The Supreme Court majority faulted Cooper for requiring the government to disclose internal DOGE recommendations and to say whether those suggestions were followed. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications,' the Supreme Court said in its two-page order. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson didn't explain their reasons for dissenting. CREW has argued that the DOGE Service should be considered an agency under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which empowers the public to see a wide range of government records. The Trump administration disagrees, arguing that DOGE plays a purely advisory role within the White House and is exempt from the law. Musk served as the public face of DOGE, but government lawyers stressed in court that Gleason is the formal head of the DOGE office. CREW's underlying public records request seeks to pry loose new information about the Tesla Inc. chief executive's role in dramatic cuts to federal spending and the workforce. The lawsuit also aims to reveal more broadly what DOGE-affiliated staff have been doing and the structure of that effort across US agencies. The case is US DOGE Service v. CREW, 24A1122.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday (June 6, 2025) in cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. Also Read | Federal judge blocks DOGE from accessing Social Security personal information for now The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The court's conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in the first Supreme Court appeals involving DOGE. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The DOGE victories come amid a messy breakup between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Mr. Musk departed from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the President to be impeached. The future of DOGE's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. In one case, the High Court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of DOGE mishandling personal information. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court's action creates 'grave privacy risks' for millions of Americans by giving 'unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson's opinion and Justice Elena Kagan said she also would have ruled against the administration. The Trump administration says DOGE needs the access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a ' Ponzi scheme ' and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The plaintiffs called the high court's order 'a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people." The White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with about 200 lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. In the other DOGE order handed down Friday, the justices extended a pause on orders that would require the team to publicly disclose information about its operations, as part of a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that DOGE, which has been central to Trump's push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Trump administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body aimed at government cost-cutting, which would make it exempt from requests for documents under FOIA. The justices did not decide that issue Friday, but the conservative majority held that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents be turned over to CREW. (AP) NSD NSD
