Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (‘TRAI’) challenging the impugned order passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’), a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J.*, concluded that the CIC erred in directing TRAI to requisition information from the Telecom Service Provider (‘TSP’), Vodafone, and provide it to the Respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’). TRAI’s authority to request information from TSPs was confined to fulfilling its regulatory functions under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (‘TRAI Act’) and the
The Court further stated that the CIC’s observation requiring the respondent to seek redressal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was misplaced and beyond its statutory mandate. TRAI was not a service provider or a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and any grievance against TRAI’s actions or inactions must be pursued before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (‘TDSAT’).
Background
In the present case, the respondent registered his mobile number under the ‘Fully Blocked Category’ of the National Consumer Register. Despite requesting activation of the ‘Fully Blocked- Do Not Disturb’ (‘DND’) service, the TSP, i.e., Vodafone allegedly altered the DND status of his mobile number without consent. Thereafter, being frustrated by the inaction on his formal complaints, the respondent filed an application under the RTI Act, seeking information related to the unsolicited voice calls and messages received by him, and the complaints he had lodged with the TSP.
The Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) provided the information available in their possession. Dissatisfied, the respondent filed an appeal and the appellate authority, noting that the CPIO had already furnished the required information, directed that a copy of the same to be sent to the respondent. Further, being aggrieved, the respondent filed a second appeal before the CIC.
Subsequently, the respondent filed another application with the TRAI, seeking information regarding the status of his complaints. However, since the requested information was not in the TRAI’s possession, the CPIO informed the respondent that, TRAI did not maintain records of the actions taken by the TSP on the complaints received by them.
The respondent filed an appeal against the decision stating that the information fell within the scope of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. However, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, stating that the information, which was sought, did not pertain to the functions and objectives of TRAI, and thus, the TSP could not be approached for the same. Thus, aggrieved by this, the respondent filed a second appeal against this order.
On 12-11-2012, the respondent filed a third RTI application, requesting details about the status of his DND registration and actions taken by Vodafone and the available information was provided by the CPIO. Dissatisfied, the respondent filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority, leading him to file a second appeal.
The CIC consolidated the three appeals and adjudicated the same through a common order dated 06-06-2014, directing the TRAI to requisition information from Vodafone pertaining to the respondent’s complaints and provide the same to the respondent under the provisions of the RTI Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the TRAI, as a public authority, operated within the framework of the TRAI Act, which governed its powers and functions. The information sought by the respondent regarding the status of his complaints, did not pertain to TRAI’s regulatory functions under Section 11 of the TRAI Act. Rather, it was the respondent’s personal grievance relating to inaction by the TSP. Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act did not empower the TRAI to requisition customer data from TSPs for the resolution of individual complaints.
The Court stated that the TRAI was under no legal obligation to collect, compile or generate the information sought by the respondent, which was neither part of their records, nor statutory functions. The Court stated that requiring TRAI to retrieve information about individual complaints from TSPs would impose an impractical and onerous burden on the TRAI. With a workforce of merely 170 employees, the TRAI lacked 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 TRAI’s core regulatory mandate and disrupt its efficient functioning.
The Court stated that the TRAI’s regulatory functions under the TRAI Act did not encompass addressing individual grievances or requisitioning customer-specific data from TSPs for dissemination under the RTI Act. Therefore, while the emphasis on exercising discretion and judiciousness in furnishing information was valid, it could not override the statutory constraints that define TRAI’s authority.
The Court stated that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was established to resolve disputes between consumers and service providers. However, TRAI, being neither a service provider nor a consumer, fell outside the ambit of this forum. TRAI was a statutory body providing a distinct dispute resolution mechanism. The Court stated that the CIC’s mandate was confined to deciding issues relating to the accessibility of information under the RTI Act, and did not extend to offering opinions or making recommendations on forums where grievances against statutory authorities could be pursued.
Therefore, the Court stated that the CIC’s remarks on the appropriateness of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as a remedy for grievances against TRAI exceed its statutory role under the RTI Act. Such comments were not only unwarranted, but also legally untenable, as they encroached upon matters unrelated to the CIC’s mandate of determining access to information.
The Court stated that the CIC’s reference to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum not only disregards this specialized mechanism but also undermined the legislative intent behind creating TDSAT as the forum for resolving such disputes. Thus, the Court stated that the CIC’s remarks regarding the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum were beyond its statutory authority and must be disregarded.
The Court concluded that the CIC erred in directing TRAI to requisition information from the TSP, Vodafone, and provide it to the Respondent under the RTI Act. TRAI’s authority to request information from TSPs was confined to fulfilling its regulatory functions under the TRAI Act and the TCCCPR 2010. It did not extend to addressing individual grievances or accessing customer-specific information solely for distribution under the RTI framework.
The Court further stated that the CIC’s observation requiring the respondent to seek redressal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was misplaced and beyond its statutory mandate. TRAI was not a service provider or a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and any grievance against TRAI’s actions or inactions must be pursued before the TDSAT. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order.
[TRAI v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, W.P.(C) 3026 of 2015, decided on 07-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocate who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ankoor Sood, Advocate.
