TRAI is not obligated to requisition information from TSPs regarding individual complaints, as its authority is limited to regulatory functions under the TRAI Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India/ TRAI, challenges the order dated 06th June, 2024 [“impugned order”] issued by the Central Information Commission. [“CIC”] The controversy stems from three RTI applications filed by the Respondent seeking information regarding complaints he lodged with his Telecom Service Provider [“TSP”] Vodafone. By the impugned order, the CIC has directed TRAI to requisition information from Vodafone pertaining to the Respondent’s complaints and provide the same to the Respondent under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. [“RTI Act”] The Petitioner argues that this directive misconstrues the regulatory framework established under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 [“TRAI Act”] and wrongly expands the scope of TRAI’s powers, rendering the order legally unsustainable.

Factual Background

2. The factual background leading to the initiation of the present proceedings is as follows:

2.1 The Respondent, Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, registered his mobile number under the ‘Fully Blocked Category’ of the National Consumer Register for the National Do Not Call Registry. 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. Frustrated by the inaction on his formal complaints to the TSP, the Respondent sought recourse under the RTI Act to obtain details about the status of his complaints.

2.2 The Respondent submitted an RTI application dated 12th October,2011 to the Petitioner, seeking information on 25 specific items related to the unsolicited voice calls and messages received by him, as well as the complaints he had lodged with the TSP concerning the same.

2.3 The Central Public Information Officer [“CPIO”] provided the information available in their possession. Dissatisfied, the Respondent filed an appeal on 04th January, 2012. The appellate authority, noting that the CPIO had already furnished the required information, directed that a copy of the same be sent to the Respondent. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission [“CIC”]on 30 th March, 2012.

2.4 Subsequently, on 09th October, 2012, the Respondent filed anotherapplication with the Petitioner, seeking information regarding the status of his complaints filed with the TSP between 27th September 2011 and 07th October, 2012. However, as the requested information was not in the possession of the Petitioner, the CPIO informed the Respondent that TRAI does not maintain records of the actions taken by the TSP on the complaints received by them.

2.5 The Respondent filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision, arguing that the sought information fell within the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, stating that the information sought did not pertain to the functions and objectives of TRAI, and thus, the TSP could not be approached for the same. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed a second appeal against this order.

2.6 On 12th November, 2012, the Respondent filed a third RTI application, requesting details about the status of his DND registration and actions taken by Vodafone. The CPIO provided the available information in a letter dated 12 th December, 2012. Dissatisfied, the Respondent filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, leading him to file a second appeal.

2.7The CIC consolidated the three appeals and adjudicated the same through a common order dated 06 th June, 2014, with the following observations:

“1. At the very outset, the Commission finds it relevant to revisit the contents of the RTI application in order to decide the nature of the information sought. The primary query of the applicant is to know the status of his complaints filed with VODAFONE Delhi under TCCCPR, 2010. The appropriate course of law has been followed by the applicant in lodging complaint