TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1997

Subject Matter : Functions of the Authority
Relevant Section : Section 11: This sections talks about the various functions to be performed by TRAI such as giving recommendations, setting terms and conditions for telecom service providers, their license, competition and other related functions.
Key Issue : Whether TRAI can ask for information about the segmented offers even after confidentiality clause?
Citation Details : Telecom Regulatory Authority of India vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Ors. (06.11.2020 - SC): MANU/SC/0848/2020
Summary Judgment :

Facts: TRAI has given an order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 of TRAI Act, 1997 stating that the telecom service providers now have to disclose information regarding segmented offers and discounts, reporting requirements to be met and Significant Market Power. This order was challenged by Bharti Airtel, Idea cellular and Vodafone Mobile Services. On appeals being pending the telecom service providers filed interim application to put a Interim stay on the order given by TRAI, to which the TDSAT set aside the Telecom Tariff 63rd Amendment Order in so far as it changes the concepts of SMP, Non-predation and the related provisions. Aggrieved by the said order TRAI has filed the following appeal.

Held: The court held that the definition of "Reporting Requirement" was substantially modified, so as to include the principles of non-discrimination and non-predation. This was amended by the 42nd Amendment order. The amended definition of Reporting Requirement makes it clear that the Reporting Requirement is for the information and record of the TRAI. By allowing the appeal it held that the information required by the TRAI cannot be said illegal or unjustified and telecom service provider has to give information to TRAI regarding segmented offer. But at the same time it is the duty and responsibility of TRAI to ensure that such information is kept confidential and is not made available to the competitors or to any other person.

Subject Matter : Establishment and Jurisdiction of Authority & Appellate Tribunal
Relevant Section : Section 3: The central government by notification will appoint an authority to be named as Telecom Regulatory Authority which will be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal and can acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable and can contract and can sue or be sued.
Section 14: The Central Government shall by notification may establish an Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate any dispute between a licensor and a licencee or between two or more service providers or between a service provider and a group of consumers.
Section 2(1)(j): "Service Provider" means the Government as a service provider and includes a licensee.
Section 18: Appeals to Supreme Court shall lie against any order, not being an interlocutory order, of the Appellate Tribunal to the Supreme Court on one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Civil procedure Code.
Key Issue : Whether the petition is maintainable before TDSAT?
Citation Details : Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Broadcast Audience Research Council India (29.09.2020 - DELHC): MANU/DE/1795/2020
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The respondent is a not-for-profit Company registered as a television rating agency by the Government of India, it introduced algorithms into its data validation method purported to mitigate the impact of 'Landing Page' on viewership data across all genres of television channels. The petitioner contented that it had restrained placing of television channels on the Landing Page on the ground that the same leads to false viewership data and creates market distortions. On the same being challenged before TDSAT by the petitioners and thereby obtaining order in their favour TRAI appealed to SC where it was held that hat the appellant shall not enforce Landing Page Regulations/directions against the respondents and other similarly situated members of the Association. The respondent contended that the petition before the TDSAT would not be maintainable as, as per S. 14 of the Act, only the disputes between licensor or licensee; between two or more service providers; or between a service provider and a group of consumers, is maintainable and the respondent in present case is neither the licensee nor the service provider. Its functions are merely that of a rating agency.

Held: It was held that Dispute between the Central Government and the respondent can lay before the learned TDSAT only if the Central Government is treated as a 'licensor' and the respondent as a 'licensee'. It would also simply that the respondent would be a "Service Provider" as defined in Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The petitioner no. 1 is a service provider and therefore, the dispute between them would fall within the scope of Section 14(a)(ii) of the Act as a dispute between two or more service providers. Once it is held that the learned TDSAT would have jurisdiction under S. 14 of the Act, the same cannot be diversified through an Agreement between the parties. Hence, the present petition is maintainable before TDSAT.

Subject Matter : Jurisdiction, Civil court not to have jurisdiction
Relevant Section : Section 15: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine.
Section 27: Bar of jurisdiction on civil court in respect of any matter which the Authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine.
Key Issue : Whether a counter claim at the instance of the Union of India in a proceeding initiated before the TDSAT by a licensee or service provider is maintainable?
Citation Details : Union of India (UOI) vs. Tata Tele-services (Maharashtra) Ltd. (23.08.2007 - SC): MANU/SC/3396/2007
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The order passed by TDSAT where the appellant was odered to return the set off claimed with interest thereon is challenged in the present appeal. Also the TDSAT has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a counter claim at the instance of the appellant.

Held: It was held that after a plain reading of the provisions of the act in the light of the preamble to the Act and the Objects and Reasons for enacting the Act, this indicates that disputes between the concerned parties, are to be determined by a specialised tribunal constituted for that purpose. There is also an ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the TDSAT is empowered by or under the Act to determine. It was held that the counter claim was maintainable and it requires to be investigated.

Subject Matter : Application of certain laws
Relevant Section : Section 38: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and nothing in this act shall affect any jurisdiction, powers and functions required to be exercised or performed by the Telegraph Authority in relation to any area falling within the jurisdiction of such Authority.
Section 11(1): It talks about the functions of the TRAI.
Key Issue : Whether the Government is bound to seek recommendation of the TRAI before exercising its licensing power?
Citation Details : Microwave Communication Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. (12.10.1999 - DELHC): MANU/DE/1299/1999
Summary Judgment :

Facts: License was granted to MTNL by the government which was challenged by other cellular mobile telephone services provider. These operators approached the TRAI challenging the grant of licence in favour of the MTNL and succeeded. The TRAI held that in view of provisions of section 11 of the TRAI Act it was necessary for the Government, i.e. the licensor to have recommendation of the TRAI before a new service provider like the MTNL could be granted a licence. This order of the TRAI was challenged by the Government in this court.

Held: It was held that If seeking of recommendation of the TRAI by the Central Government was meant to be mandatory, there was noting to prevent the Legislature from saying so. It appears that the Legislature intentionally used the word 'recommend'. This is in consonance with S. 38 of the TRAI Act. Further, S. 38 provides that nothing in the TRAI Act shall affect any jurisdiction, powers and functions required to be exercised or performed by the Telegraph Authority in relation to any area falling within the jurisdiction of such Authority. Thus, S. 38 leaves no scope for an argument suggesting conflict between TRAI Act and the IT Act. Both the provisions have to coexist and to bench it appears that it is for this reason that the non-obstante clause has been used in sub-section (1) of S. 11 TRAI Act only by way of abundant caution. It was held that the TRAI has no power to issue directions to the Government as a licensor.