CIC can't ask TRAI to requisition subscriber information from telcos: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that the Central Information Commission (CIC) cannot ask the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to requisition information on subscribers from Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) under the Right To Information Act (RTI). [TRAI v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra].Justice Sanjeev Narula held,“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 is confined to fulfilling its regulatory functions under the TRAI Act and the Telecom Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulation 2010 (TCCCPR). It does not extend to addressing individual grievances or accessing customer-specific information solely for dissemination under the RTI framework.".The Court further held that the CIC overstepped its authority by suggesting that grievances against TRAI should be addressed to consumer disputes redressal forums. It emphasised that the appropriate forum for such grievances is the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), as established under the TRAI Act..Akshay Kumar Malhotra, the respondent before the Court, had registered his mobile number under the "Fully Blocked" category of the National Do Not Call Registry. Despite requesting this service, Vodafone allegedly altered his "Do Not Disturb" (DND) status without consent. Frustrated with Vodafone’s lack of action on his complaints, Malhotra filed a series of RTI applications to obtain information about the status of his complaints.On October 12, 2011, Malhotra submitted an RTI application seeking information on 25 specific items related to unsolicited calls and messages. TRAI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided some responses, but informed him that certain details were unavailable. Dissatisfied, he filed appeals, eventually reaching the Central Information Commission (CIC). He later submitted additional RTI applications on related issues, including details about his DND registration and Vodafone’s actions, but TRAI consistently stated that it did not maintain such records.In its consolidated decision on June 6, 2014, the CIC noted that TRAI is a regulatory authority and does not maintain records of individual complaints lodged with TSPs. However, the CIC held that TRAI could use its regulatory powers to obtain the requested information from Vodafone and provide it to Malhotra. The CIC also emphasised that grievances regarding TRAI’s inaction should be addressed before appropriate legal forums, such as consumer disputes redressal commissions..TRAI challenged the CIC’s order before the Delhi High Court, arguing that it had already provided the available information. It contended that it was neither authorised nor obligated under the TRAI Act or the RTI Act to access individual customer complaint records maintained by TSPs. TRAI also highlighted its limited manpower and statutory mandate, asserting that the CIC misinterpreted its regulatory responsibilities..The Court found that Malhotra’s RTI queries related to two primary issues: the status of complaints lodged with Vodafone and the interpretation of the term “days” under the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2010 (TCCCPR) 2010. It noted that TRAI provided responses to some queries but argued that it lacked authority to collect customer-specific data or interpret regulations. The Court affirmed this, and found that TRAI’s power to request information under Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act is limited to fulfilling its regulatory functions. The Court disagreed with the CIC's finding that grievances against TRAI should be redressed before consumer fora, emphasising that, “TRAI, being neither a service provider nor a consumer, falls outside the ambit of this forum.” .The Court further highlighted that the RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to interpret regulations or adjudicate disputes. Similarly, the CIC’s directive effectively compelling TRAI to interpret the term “days” under the TCCCPR 2010 was deemed to exceed its statutory mandate, as such interpretations are outside the scope of the RTI Act..TRAI was represented by Advocate Ankur Sood.The respondent appeared in person..[Read Judgment]