Delhi High Court Quashes CIC Order, Rules TRAI Not Responsible for Resolving Consumer Complaints or Collecting Information from Vodafone for RTI Requests

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court set aside the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) directive, stating that TRAI’s mandate under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) does not extend to addressing individual consumer grievances or requisitioning data from TSPs for RTI applicants. The Court clarified that TRAI’s role is regulatory and policy-driven, and the CIC order exceeded the bounds of both the TRAI Act and the RTI Act.

Facts:

1. Background:
   The respondent, a telecom subscriber, had registered for the “Do Not Disturb” (DND) service to avoid unsolicited commercial communications (UCC). Despite this, he continued receiving unsolicited calls and messages.
2. Complaints and RTI Applications:
   • Dissatisfied with Vodafone’s inaction on his complaints, the respondent filed multiple RTI applications seeking details regarding the status of his grievances with Vodafone.
   • TRAI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided some information but stated that information regarding complaints lodged with Vodafone was not maintained by TRAI.
   • The respondent escalated the matter to the CIC, which consolidated his appeals and directed TRAI to obtain and provide the requested information from Vodafone.
3. CIC’s Order:
   The CIC held that under the RTI Act, TRAI could access such information from Vodafone and furnish it to the respondent. The CIC further suggested that grievances against TRAI’s inaction could be pursued before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Issues:

1. Does the RTI Act compel TRAI to collect information from TSPs (like Vodafone) and share it with RTI applicants?
2. Does the CIC have the authority to direct TRAI to act beyond its statutory obligations under the TRAI Act?
3. Can TRAI be held responsible for addressing individual complaints of telecom subscribers?

Petitioner’s (TRAI’s) Arguments:

1. Scope of Authority:
   TRAI argued that it is a regulatory body and not obligated to address individual complaints. Its power to requisition information from TSPs is confined to fulfilling its regulatory functions under the TRAI Act.
2. RTI Limitations:
   TRAI contended that the RTI Act requires public authorities to disclose only the information they possess or control. It is not obligated to generate, compile, or collect data from private entities for RTI applicants.
3. Administrative Burden:
   With a small workforce of 170 employees, requiring TRAI to handle individual complaints would impose an unreasonable burden, detracting from its core regulatory responsibilities.
4. Judicial Precedents:
   TRAI relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and TRAI v. Yash Pal, to argue that its powers are limited to regulatory and policy-related functions.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. RTI Provisions:
   The respondent argued that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, TRAI can access information held by private entities (TSPs) if it is required for its regulatory functions.
2. Public Interest:
   The respondent highlighted the larger issue of unsolicited commercial communications, which affect millions of telecom subscribers. He argued that this matter of public interest justified TRAI’s intervention.
3. Authority under TRAI Act:
   The respondent claimed that Sections 11 and 12 of the TRAI Act empower TRAI to requisition information from TSPs, and it should use this authority to address his grievances.
4. Accountability:
   TRAI, as a regulatory body, has a responsibility to ensure compliance by TSPs with consumer protection regulations.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act:
   • Section 2(f) defines “information” to include data held by private entities if accessible by a public authority under the law.
   • However, the High Court emphasized that TRAI’s authority to access such information is limited to its regulatory functions under the TRAI Act.
2. TRAI’s Functions under the TRAI Act:
   • Section 11 outlines TRAI’s functions, focusing on regulatory and policy matters.
   • Section 12 allows TRAI to request information from TSPs but only for regulatory purposes, not for resolving individual grievances.
3. Judicial Precedents:
   • CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: Public authorities are required to disclose only information they hold, not to create or collect data.
   • TRAI v. Yash Pal: TRAI’s authority to requisition information is limited to its regulatory responsibilities and cannot be extended to address individual grievances.
4. Administrative Burden:
   The Court noted that requiring TRAI to handle individual complaints or collect data from TSPs would strain its limited resources and detract from its primary functions.

Precedent Analysis:

• TRAI v. Yash Pal: Reinforced that TRAI’s power to call for information is confined to regulatory purposes.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: Clarified that public authorities are not obligated to generate or collect information for RTI applicants.
• Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer: Held that public authorities are not required to provide interpretations, explanations, or opinions under the RTI Act.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. CIC’s Overreach:
   The CIC exceeded its jurisdiction by directing TRAI to act beyond its statutory authority under the TRAI Act and the RTI Act.
2. Regulatory Mandate:
   TRAI’s statutory role does not include addressing individual complaints or acting as a mediator between telecom subscribers and TSPs.
3. RTI Framework:
   The RTI Act does not compel public authorities to create, compile, or collect information that is not already in their possession.
4. Consumer Grievances:
   The proper forum for addressing consumer grievances against TSPs is through the mechanisms provided under the Telecom Consumer Complaint Redressal Regulations, not TRAI or the RTI Act.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court quashed the CIC’s order, holding that:

1. TRAI is not obligated to collect information from TSPs for individual grievances under the RTI Act.
2. The CIC’s directive exceeded the bounds of its statutory authority.
3. Grievances against TRAI’s actions or inactions must be addressed before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), not the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the statutory limits of public authorities under the RTI Act, ensuring they are not burdened with tasks beyond their legislative mandate. It also clarifies the distinct roles of regulatory bodies like TRAI and consumer grievance redressal mechanisms, preserving their focus on policy and regulatory functions.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Premature Retirement of CISF Personnel: “Service Record Portrays a Doleful Picture,” Highlights Misconduct and Public Interest as Key Justifications Under Rule 48 of CCS Rules