An Unending Saga of Extensions: Are BSNL and MTNL Low on Government Priorities?
Another three months for Ravi A. Robert Jerard. Another deadline for a regular CMD - another question mark over leadership at two state-owned telecom companies
The Department of Telecommunications has found a familiar solution to an increasingly familiar problem: extend the additional charge.
Its October 14, 2026, order extends Ravi A. Robert Jerard’s additional charge as Chairman and Managing Director of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) until January 14, 2027, or until a regular incumbent is appointed, whichever is earlier.
Three more months. That is the latest instalment in an arrangement that has repeatedly been extended.
At this point, the question is no longer merely when a regular CMD will be appointed. It is whether the leadership of two government-owned telecom companies commands the urgency that their strategic importance demands.
Two PSUs, One Interim Arrangement
BSNL is not just another government company. It is a national telecom operator whose role extends beyond commercial considerations to connectivity in remote areas, strategic communications and the government’s broader ambitions for indigenous telecommunications infrastructure.
MTNL, despite its difficult financial and operational circumstances, remains a government-owned operator serving Delhi and Mumbai.
Both companies face substantial challenges. BSNL must consolidate its network expansion, strengthen service quality and compete in a market dominated by private telecom operators. MTNL’s future requires clear strategic direction and decisions on its role within the public-sector telecom framework.
These are not organisations that can afford prolonged uncertainty over leadership.
Yet the government continues to rely on an additional-charge arrangement for their top positions.
The Three-Month Government
There is a peculiar rhythm to this saga. A tenure approaches its expiry, an extension order arrives, and the clock starts ticking again.
The arrangement continues. The deadline moves. The permanent appointment remains pending.
Extensions are a legitimate administrative mechanism. They can preserve continuity while a regular appointment is processed. But when temporary arrangements are renewed repeatedly, the obvious question is whether the system is taking longer than it should to deliver a permanent solution.
An additional-charge arrangement may be administratively convenient. It is not, by itself, a substitute for a clearly communicated leadership plan.
And the problem is not simply the designation on a visiting card. It is the larger question of accountability, strategic direction and the ability to pursue long-term institutional priorities.
Are BSNL and MTNL Low on the Government’s Priority List?
The repeated extensions do not, by themselves, establish that the government considers BSNL and MTNL unimportant. There may be administrative or selection-related reasons for the delay, and the latest order does not explain them.
But the government must also recognise the message that prolonged interim arrangements can send.
When leadership at two major public-sector telecom operators continues on an extension-by-extension basis, it is reasonable to ask whether filling these positions permanently has received the attention it deserves.
The government has invested considerable effort in BSNL’s revival and network modernisation. The question, therefore, is not whether the two companies matter in principle. It is whether the urgency visible in their stated objectives is matched by urgency in settling their leadership.
A government cannot demand long-term transformation from its PSUs while allowing the question of permanent leadership to remain open-ended.
January 14: The Next Date in the Diary
The latest order sets January 14, 2027, as the next outer date for the arrangement, subject to the earlier appointment of a regular incumbent.
Will a permanent CMD be in place by then? Or will another extension add a fresh chapter to this saga?
That remains to be seen.
For now, the public-sector telecom story carries an uncomfortable irony: companies expected to build the future of connectivity are still waiting for certainty at the top.
An extension can bridge a vacancy. An unending saga of extensions raises a different question: when will the government finally bring the arrangement to a close?
