TRAI's Obligations Don't Extend To Seeking Info Under RTI Act On Status Of Complaints Lodged With Telecom Service Providers: Delhi HC

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that seeking the status of complaints filed by individuals from Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) is not covered under Section 11 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) pertaining to TRAI's regulatory functions.

The Court was hearing TRAI's challenge to an order of the Central Information Commission, which directed TRAI to requisition information from TSP/Vodafone relating to the respondent's complaint under the RTI Act.

The respondent had registered his mobile number under the National Consumer Register's 'Fully Blocked Category' for the 'Fully Blocked- Do Not Disturb (DND)' service. This DND status was allegedly blocked by Vodafone without his consent.

Due to the alleged inaction of Vodafone on his complaints, the respondent filed 3 RTI applications seeking information on the status of his complaints lodged with Vodafone.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided the information available in their possession, however, the respondent was dissatisfied with it and filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, stating that the information sought did not pertain to the functions and objectives of TRAI.

The respondent then approached the CIC, which held the information sought by the respondent fell within TRAI's regulatory framework and directed it to gather the information from the TSP/Vodafone.

The CIC also observed that the respondent could only approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against any inaction of TRAI in redressal of his grievance.

TRAI contended that the CIC's order requiring it to obtain information from Vodafone and supply it to the respondent under the RTI Act exceeded its statutory scope.

TRAI further contended that the CIC's observation that the grievances concerning TRAI's alleged inaction can only be addressed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was incorrect as it did not fall within its functions.

TRAI's Functions Does Not Extend To Requisition Of Information From Telecom Service Provider

The High Court referred to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which states that 'information' includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority.

On TRAI's functions, the Court noted that Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act allows TRAI to requisition information or explanations from TSPs. However, it noted that TRAI's authority to ask for such information is limited to its statutory powers and functions.

It observed that the information sought by the respondent did not come within the TRAI's regulatory functions under Section 11 of TRAI Act.

The Court stated that it the information sought arose from the respondent's 'personal grievance 'against Vodafone. It stated that the Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act does not empower TRAI to requisition customer data from TSPs for the resolution of individual complaints.

“The information sought by the Respondent regarding the status of his complaints lodged with Vodafone, does not pertain to TRAI's regulatory functions under Section 11. Rather, it arises from the Respondent's personal grievance relating to inaction by the TSP.”

The Court also noted that the Telecom Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulations, 2010 (TCCCPR) does not place any obligations on TRAI to collect or maintain information relating to individual customer grievances lodged with TSPs.

Additionally, the Court remarked that requiring TRAI to requisition information from TSPs about individual complaints would impose substantial burden on it and disrupt its main regulatory functions.

“Furthermore, requiring TRAI to retrieve information about individual complaints from TSPs would impose an impractical and onerous burden on the Petitioner. With a workforce of merely 170 employees, the Petitioner lacks the operational capacity to manage or compile data related to the grievances of over 900 million telecom subscribers. Such an obligation would detract from the Petitioner's core regulatory mandate and disrupt its efficient functioning.” the Court said.

The Court thus held that the CIC's order requiring TRAI to requisition information from TSP/Vodafone and then provide it to the respondent was incorrect.

TRAI Falls Outside Ambit Of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

On CIC's observations that the respondent could seek redress for grievances concerning the alleged inaction of TRAI before the Forum, the Court noted that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum resolve disputes between consumers and service providers.

Observing that the TRAI is neither a consumer nor a service provider, the Court stated that TRAI fell outside the purview of the forum. It noted that the CIC's order exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction under the RTI Act.

It stated, “The CIC's mandate is confined to deciding issues relating to the accessibility of information under the RTI Act, and does not extend to offering opinions or making recommendations on forums where grievances against statutory authorities can be pursued.”

It noted that the TRAI Act provides a dispute resolution mechanism under which the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) is empowered to adjudicate disputes involving orders or directions of TRAI.

Opining that the CIC's remarks on the issue were unwarranted and legally untenable, the Court stated, “Allowing the CIC to make observations on remedies outside the RTI framework risks creating confusion and misdirection for aggrieved parties. The statutory remedy for grievances concerning TRAI's actions or inactions lies exclusively with TDSAT, as provided under the TRAI Act. The CIC's reference to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum not only disregards this specialized mechanism, but also undermines the legislative intent behind creating TDSAT as the forum for resolving such disputes.”

The Court thus said that the CIC's observations on this matter must be disregarded.

With these observations, the Court set-aside the CIC's order and disposed of the petition.

Case title: Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra (W.P.(C) 3026/2015)