Gopal Vittal has led Bharti Airtel as Managing Director & CEO for the last thirteen years. As part of a structured succession process, Gopal, in addition to being the Managing Director, was appointed Vice Chairman of Bharti Airtel Ltd in October 2024. Shashwat Sharma was appointed CEO designate of the Company.

In line with the planned succession, Gopal Vittal will move into the role of Executive Vice Chairman of Bharti Airtel on the 1st of January 2026 overseeing Bharti Airtel and all its subsidiaries.

In his new role, besides oversight of the companies, Gopal will also be responsible for driving group synergies in the areas of digital and technology, network strategy, procurement and talent. He will also focus on Group strategy and future proofing the organization for the next evolution of its development.

Following a well-structured and successful transition process, Gopal will be succeeded by Shashwat Sharma as MD and CEO of Bharti Airtel India on the 1st of January 2026. In his role as CEO designate, Shashwat has over the past twelve months, spent considerable time working alongside Gopal across the business in preparation for the role. Shashwat will report to Gopal.

Additionally, Soumen Ray, currently the Chief Financial Officer for Bharti Airtel India, will be appointed as Group Chief Financial Officer reporting to Gopal. Soumen has been on his current role for about 4 years and has been instrumental in guiding Bharti Airtel financial performance.

Akhil Garg, currently Financial Controller, Bharti Airtel will be appointed as Chief Financial Officer for Bharti Airtel India. Akhil has been with Airtel for nearly 12 years and has held multiple roles leading several business projects including the Hexacom IPO. In his new role, Akhil will report to Shashwat and Soumen.

Rohit Puri, currently Joint Company Secretary C Compliance Officer, will be appointed as Company Secretary C Compliance Officer for Bharti Airtel. Pankaj Tewari, who is the Group Company Secretary, will continue to provide leadership and oversight at a group level.

Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman, Bharti Airtel said: ‘I am extremely pleased with the succession and transition of leadership at Airtel and there could not have been a better time, where change and continuity will go hand in hand. I have no doubt both Gopal and Shashwat will continue to build on the momentum and I wish them much success in their roles.

As an organization we pride ourselves with our highly energised and professional management team, which combined with our entrepreneurial flair, brings to hundreds of millions of customers, the best technology and services across the geographies we operate. I look forward to working alongside Gopal and the team to continue this pursuit as we drive towards our ambition of building the best global Telcom company’

Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Friday strongly criticised the Modi government over the passage of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Bill, alleging that it has effectively dismantled the 20-year-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a post on X, Gandhi said the new law was not a revamp of MGNREGA but a fundamental dilution of its core principles.

“Last night, the Modi government demolished twenty years of MGNREGA in one day,” he said.

He alleged that the new legislation converts a rights-based, demand-driven employment guarantee into a rationed, centrally controlled scheme, describing it as “anti-state and anti-village by design”.

‘Breaks Bargaining Power of Rural Workers’

Gandhi said MGNREGA had empowered rural workers by giving them bargaining power.

“With real options, exploitation and distress migration fell, wages increased and working conditions improved, while rural infrastructure was created and revived,” he said, alleging that this leverage is what the government now seeks to dismantle.

He claimed that by capping employment days and creating more grounds to deny work, the new law weakens the only safety net available to the rural poor.

“We saw the importance of MGNREGA during Covid. When livelihoods collapsed, it prevented crores from falling into hunger and debt,” he said.

Impact on Women and Marginalised Communities

Gandhi said women benefitted the most from MGNREGA, noting that they accounted for more than half of the total person-days generated every year.

“When you ration a jobs programme, women, Dalits, Adivasis, landless workers and the poorest OBC communities are the first to be pushed out,” he said.

Criticism Over Parliamentary Process

The Congress leader also objected to the manner in which the Bill was passed, alleging that it was pushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny.

“The opposition’s demand to send the Bill to a standing committee was rejected. A law that rewires the rural social contract affecting crores of workers should not be rammed through without expert consultation and public hearings,” he said.

Accusing the government of centralising power, Gandhi said,

“The targets are clear: weaken labour, weaken rural India’s leverage—especially of Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis—and then sell slogans as reform.”

Congress Vows Opposition

Asserting that MGNREGA was among the most successful poverty-alleviation programmes globally, Gandhi said the Congress would oppose the new law.

“We will not allow the government to destroy the rural poor’s last line of defence. We will stand with workers, panchayats and states to defeat this move and ensure this law is withdrawn,” he said.

Background

Parliament on Thursday night passed the VB-G RAM G Bill, which seeks to replace MGNREGA and guarantees 125 days of rural wage employment per year. The Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha through a voice vote hours after being cleared by the Lok Sabha, amid strong protests by opposition parties.

The opposition has objected to the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme and accused the Centre of shifting the financial burden onto states.

The Rajya Sabha on Thursday took up a discussion on the nuclear energy bill, with Union Jitendra Singh asserting that no compromise will be made with the safeguard mechanism in place.

Singh, the Minister of State, Department of Atomic Energy, moved the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, which seeks to open the tightly-controlled civil nuclear sector for private participation.

The bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.

The minister stated that nuclear is a reliable 24×7 power supply source, which is not so in the case of other renewable energy options.

“In the last 10-11 years, India has assumed a global role for itself. India is no longer following others as it happened earlier…we are the first line nation. We are no longer followers. India is offering cues for others to follow,” he said.

It is for the first time after 2014, priority being given to global concerns, whether it is climate, energy, energy security or clean energy, he added.

He told the House that there will be a diversion towards clean energy for a number of reasons because the entire world is moving towards that, and it is also important for us to achieve the goal in toto, so that India becomes less and less dependent on petroleum resources or fossil fuel sources.

“We also require nuclear energy, which is a reliable 24×7 energy source, unlike other renewable energy options,” Singh said.

He informed the House that a lot has been done to upscale nuclear energy. Before 2014, the budget of the atomic energy department was just Rs 13,879 crore, which has now increased to Rs 37,483 crore in the current year.

He said that in 2015, this government took another bold decision and opened the nuclear sector for joint ventures, but those were limited to PSUs only and not to the private (players).

In 2017, in a cabinet decision, a bulk approval was given to set up 10 reactors. In September 2025, the Prime Minister laid the foundation of four nuclear reactors, he added.

When this (NDA) government came to power in 2014, the nuclear power capacity was just 4.7 GW; now it is 8.9GW, he pointed out.

He informed that this capacity is just 3 per cent of the required power generation, and to scale it up to at least 10 per cent by 2047, a nuclear energy mission was launched in this budget.

The important component of the mission is opening up nuclear energy for the private sector, but with certain safeguards and other surveillance mechanisms in place.

Referring to the bill, he said some adjustments and modifications are needed to accommodate private players.

He also informed that the regulatory board is also part of this bill and is being given statutory status.

“Let me assure that no compromise will be made with the safeguard (mechanism),” he said. (Agencies)

The Supreme Court of India has raised significant concerns regarding a disturbing trend where judges issue multiple judicial orders immediately before their retirement. This phenomenon, characterized by judges passing orders akin to a batter ‘hitting sixes in the final overs,’ has garnered increasing attention from legal authorities and practitioners.

The remarks came from a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, during the hearing of a petition filed by a Principal District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh. The judge challenged his suspension, which occurred just ten days ahead of his scheduled retirement.

“It is an unfortunate trend. There is a growing tendency of judges passing so many orders just before retirement,” CJI Surya Kant stated solemnly during proceedings.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, expressed their discontent over this issue. They compared such actions to a cricket player trying to score last-minute runs, suggesting a sense of urgency behind these decisions.

The suspended officer was due to retire on November 30, 2023, but faced suspension following a Full Court decision from the Madhya Pradesh High Court on November 19. Allegedly, this suspension arose from two specific judicial orders he issued shortly prior to his retirement.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate Vipin Sanghi defended the judicial officer, emphasizing his exemplary service record and highlighting commendable ratings in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Sanghi argued that disciplinary action based purely on judicial orders is unwarranted, stating, “How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which are appealable and can be corrected by higher courts?”

The Supreme Court judges concurred with Sanghi’s argument, asserting that ordinarily, disciplinary proceedings do not arise from judicial errors. However, CJI Surya Kant probed deeper, asking, “What if the orders are palpably dishonest?” This distinction underscores the fine line between an honest judicial error and actual misconduct.

Moreover, on November 20, the Supreme Court decided to enhance the retirement age for judicial officers from 60 to 61 years. Consequently, this decision altered the petitioner’s retirement date to November 30, 2026. The CJI noted that the judicial officer was not privy to this crucial extension when he issued the contested orders, which influences the context of the suspension.

The Bench questioned why the officer had not sought legal recourse through the High Court to contest his suspension. Sanghi clarified that since the suspension resulted from a Full Court decision, the petitioner opted to approach the Supreme Court directly. However, the justices acknowledged past instances when Full Court decisions were overturned by High Courts in judicial proceedings.

The Court also criticized the officer’s method of seeking information regarding his suspension via applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. They expressed that it is not befitting of a senior judicial officer to pursue information through such channels when a formal representation could have sufficed.

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to entertain the petition but granted the judicial officer the liberty to submit a representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, requesting a reconsideration of the suspension order. The Bench instructed the High Court to review and make a decision on this representation within four weeks.