Special CBI Court trial continues in Maran BSNL telephone exchange case

What the Record Shows

The trial of the former Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and five others in the illegal private telephone exchange case is under way before the Special CBI Court at Chennai, and it is that live trial, not any earlier discharge, that is the current position on the record. The Central Bureau of Investigation's case is registered as RC DST 2013 A 0019/CBI/STF/DLI, with the trial numbered C.C. No. 12 of 2017.

The distinction matters because the case has already turned once. A trial court discharged the accused, but the Madras High Court, in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 671 and 682 to 684 of 2018 decided by Dr Justice G. Jayachandran and pronounced on 25 July 2018, set aside that discharge and directed the framing of charges against all seven accused, remitting the matter for trial to continue. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that direction, charges were framed, and the trial then began.

How far it has travelled is recorded in a later Madras High Court order dated 25 March 2026, which notes that the prosecution has examined numerous witnesses and marked several documents while the trial remains incomplete; by that account 98 witnesses have been examined and 418 exhibits marked. The offences charged, as the High Court set them out, are under Sections 120(B), 409, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code together with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No court has convicted anyone; the charges are allegations the CBI must still prove, and the accused deny them.

How It Worked

The mechanism the CBI alleges is set out in its chargesheet and summarised in the High Court's orders. The chargesheet alleges that, during the period the CBI places at 2004 to 2007, when Dayanidhi Maran held the communications portfolio, a bank of high-end telephone lines with ISDN facilities was installed at his Chennai residence as ministerial facilities and then used not for official work but to carry the business traffic of a private media group.

According to the prosecution's case as recorded by the High Court, high-speed lines were blocked and dedicated to the use of SUN TV Network, allowing broadcast and commercial traffic to run over sanctioned circuits without metering or payment. The High Court's summary of the allegation refers to the illegal installation of landlines with ISDN facilities and additional SIM cards that were, on the CBI's case, blocked for SUN TV and distributed to private individuals rather than used for the ministerial purpose for which they were provided.

The CBI further alleges, per the 2026 order's account of the chargesheet, that false or misleading official replies were generated to conceal the arrangement and so enable the continued free use of the telecom infrastructure. The corruption charges under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reflect the CBI's characterisation that a public servant who was the sanctioning authority for telecom facilities was also the beneficiary of them. Every one of these is an allegation the trial court has yet to test on evidence, and the framing of charges is a finding that there is a case to answer, not a finding of guilt.

Who Lost Money

The party said to have borne the loss in this case is not a set of retail depositors but the public exchequer, through the state-owned telecom carrier. The CBI alleges that the diversion of metered, billable circuit capacity to a private commercial user, without payment, caused a wrongful loss estimated at about Rs 1.78 crore to the public-sector telecom entity. That figure is the CBI's estimate as stated in its chargesheet and reflected in the court record; it has not been adjudicated, and the trial will determine whether it stands.

This is the elite-access counterpart to the retail telecom-bypass cases that fill this category. Where a SIM-box operation reroutes ordinary paid calls to dodge charges, the allegation here is of unbilled circuit capacity sanctioned through public office, the loss falling on the carrier and, behind it, the public purse rather than on individual customers.

Because the alleged victim is a public institution, there is no question of a distribution to depositors. What is at stake instead is whether the state can establish the loss and the responsibility for it to the criminal standard, and any recovery would follow only from a conviction and the consequential orders a court might pass.

Where It Stands Now

As of the most recent order reviewed, dated 25 March 2026, the trial before the Special CBI Court at Chennai is ongoing and incomplete, with 98 witnesses examined and 418 exhibits marked. Charges stand framed against all seven accused, and no verdict has been delivered. The earlier discharge is not the current position: it was set aside by the Madras High Court on 25 July 2018, and the Supreme Court did not disturb that outcome.

This case should not be confused with the separate Aircel-Maxis matter involving the same brothers, which followed its own course. Here, the single fact that governs any fair account is that charges have been framed and the trial is in progress; nothing has been proved, and the accused contest the charges.

A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The Rs 1.78 crore figure, the account of how the lines were used, and the description of concealment are all the prosecution's assertions, to be established or rejected at trial.

What It Means

For a reader, the value of this matter is less in its rupee figure, which is modest by the standards of this desk, than in what it shows about how a criminal case actually moves. A discharge by a trial court is not an acquittal, and it can be reversed on revision, as it was here in 2018. The framing of charges that followed is not a conviction either; it is only a judicial finding that the material discloses a case fit for trial. Between those two poles lies a process that, in this instance, has run for years and is still examining witnesses two decades after the conduct alleged.

The practical takeaway is about reading enforcement news accurately. When an early-stage order is reported as though it settled the matter, it often has not; the current stage is what counts, and in this case the current stage is a trial in progress. That is the same discipline this desk applies across its coverage. Readers can follow how comparable matters develop through Oquilia's enforcement coverage, and may find useful contrasts in our reports on the Kerala High Court's refusal of bail in the half-price CSR case and the SEBI order in the Zee Entertainment pledge case, each of which turns on a different point in the same accusation-to-finding journey.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt. Dayanidhi Maran, Kalanithi Maran and the other accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, the charges are contested, and the trial before the Special CBI Court, Chennai is still in progress with no verdict delivered.

Weren't the accused discharged in this case?

A trial court did discharge the accused, but the Madras High Court set that discharge aside on 25 July 2018 and directed that charges be framed, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere. The discharge is therefore not the current position; the current position is a trial in progress.

What exactly does the CBI allege?

The CBI alleges that high-end telephone lines with ISDN facilities, sanctioned as ministerial facilities during 2004 to 2007, were used to carry the business traffic of a private media group without metering or payment, and that misleading official replies concealed the arrangement, causing a wrongful loss estimated at about Rs 1.78 crore to the public-sector telecom carrier.

How far has the trial reached?

Per a Madras High Court order dated 25 March 2026, the prosecution has examined 98 witnesses and marked 418 exhibits, and the trial before the Special CBI Court, Chennai remains incomplete. Charges stand framed against all seven accused.

Is this the same as the Aircel-Maxis case?

No. This is the illegal private telephone exchange case, registered by the CBI as RC DST 2013 A 0019 and tried as C.C. No. 12 of 2017 at Chennai. The Aircel-Maxis matter is a separate proceeding and should not be conflated with it.

Where can I read the official record?

The Madras High Court order of 25 July 2018 setting aside the discharge, and the later order of 25 March 2026 describing the trial's progress, are published on Indian Kanoon and are linked below.

This report is based on the Madras High Court order dated 25 July 2018 setting aside the discharge and directing the framing of charges, and the Madras High Court order dated 25 March 2026 describing the trial's progress, reviewed on 2 August 2026.