The Delhi High Court has overturned an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had previously directed the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to procure and disclose specific customer data from Vodafone to an individual under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, who clarified the limits of TRAI’s responsibilities concerning individual consumer grievances.
The issue began when a consumer, despite registering his cellphone number under the “fully blocked” category of the national do not call registry, faced unwanted changes to his “do not disturb” status by Vodafone, purportedly without his consent. After his complaints to the service provider went unresolved, he sought to obtain records of his complaints through the RTI Act.
Although the consumer received some information from the central public information officer, dissatisfaction led him to escalate the matter, which eventually reached the CIC. In June 2024, the CIC ruled that TRAI should acquire detailed records of the consumer’s complaints from Vodafone and provide them under the RTI Act. This directive aimed to address the consumer’s grievances directly through TRAI’s intervention.
However, TRAI contested this order in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the CIC’s directive misinterpreted its regulatory functions and overstepped the boundaries established under the TRAI Act. TRAI’s responsibilities are primarily regulatory and are not intended to handle individual customer service issues, which typically fall under the jurisdiction of service providers and the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
Justice Narula supported this stance, stating, “TRAI is 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. By making observation and issuing directions unrelated to the scope of the RTI Act, the CIC undermined the legislative framework governing the resolution of telecom disputes.”
