Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court, on January 7, 2025, set aside an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to obtain and furnish information from Vodafone regarding complaints filed by a subscriber. The Court held that TRAI's statutory authority under the TRAI Act does not extend to requisitioning customer-specific data from telecom service providers (TSPs) for the purpose of responding to applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The case arose from three RTI applications filed by Akshay Kumar Malhotra, the respondent, seeking information about complaints lodged with Vodafone concerning unsolicited commercial communications (UCC). Dissatisfied with the responses provided by TRAI's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Malhotra escalated the matter to the CIC, which issued a consolidated order on June 6, 2024, directing TRAI to gather and provide the requested information from Vodafone.

The CIC held that the requested information regarding the respondent's complaints fell within TRAI's regulatory domain under the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations (TCCCPR), 2010. It stated, “The information sought by the applicant regarding the status of his complaints with Vodafone clearly falls within the regulatory powers exercised by the TRAI and thus there can be no reason which prevents the TRAI from gathering the information from the service provider and providing the same to the applicant.”

TRAI challenged the CIC's order, asserting that the directive exceeded its statutory authority. It argued that under Section 11 of the TRAI Act, its functions are regulatory and policy-oriented and do not extend to addressing individual consumer grievances or collecting data on such complaints. TRAI also contended that the CIC's directive imposed an onerous administrative burden that detracted from its core regulatory functions.

The respondent countered that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information held by private entities, which is accessible by a public authority under any law, falls within the scope of the RTI Act. He argued that Sections 12 and 13 of the TRAI Act empower TRAI to requisition information from TSPs and that TRAI could use these provisions to comply with the RTI request. The respondent further contended that the issue of UCC affects a substantial portion of the population and involves significant public interest.

The Court examined the scope of TRAI’s authority under the TRAI Act and its obligations under the RTI Act. Referring to Section 11 of the TRAI Act, the Court stated that TRAI's functions are confined to regulating the telecom sector, ensuring compliance with licensing conditions, and addressing systemic issues within the industry. The Court observed, “The statutory framework governing TRAI’s functions does not envisage the authority requisitioning customer-specific data from TSPs for dissemination under the RTI Act.”

The Court further noted that Section 12 of the TRAI Act allows TRAI to seek information from TSPs only when necessary for discharging its regulatory functions. Citing its earlier decision in TRAI v. Yash Pal, the Court held that TRAI cannot be compelled to collect information unrelated to its statutory mandate. It stated, “The power to call for information or explanation from service providers is limited to fulfilling TRAI’s regulatory responsibilities and cannot be extended to address individual consumer complaints.”

The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which held that a public authority is obligated to disclose only the information it possesses or controls and is not required to generate or compile data for an RTI applicant. In light of this precedent, the Court held that TRAI cannot be directed to collect information from Vodafone for the purpose of responding to the respondent’s RTI queries.

The Court took note of TRAI’s limited workforce, comprising only 170 employees, and highlighted the impracticality of burdening it with tasks that fall outside its statutory mandate. It observed that requiring TRAI to manage complaints from over 900 million telecom subscribers would significantly impede its core regulatory functions.

Regarding the CIC’s observations that grievances concerning TRAI's inaction should be addressed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the Court clarified that TRAI is a statutory body under the TRAI Act and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. It held that disputes involving TRAI's actions or inactions must be pursued before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), as provided under Section 14 of the TRAI Act. The Court stated, “The CIC’s observations on the forum for addressing grievances exceed its jurisdiction under the RTI Act and encroach upon matters outside its statutory mandate.”

The Court allowed TRAI's petition and set aside the CIC’s order, holding that TRAI’s regulatory functions do not encompass addressing individual grievances or collecting customer-specific data for dissemination under the RTI Act. The Court stated that the legislative framework governing TRAI confines its responsibilities to its statutory duties and does not extend to consumer dispute resolution or the dissemination of information beyond its defined mandate.

Case Title: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3026/2015, CM APPL. 5413/2015, CM APPL. 55669/2022
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

[View/Download order]