Clarifying TRAI’s Limits Under RTI: No Obligation to Acquire or Interpret Third-Party Information

Introduction

This judgment from the Delhi High Court in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra (decided on January 7, 2025) sheds significant light on the scope of TRAI’s duties and obligations under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The dispute arose when an individual (the Respondent) sought detailed information regarding his complaints about unsolicited commercial communications lodged with his Telecom Service Provider (TSP), Vodafone. The Central Information Commission (CIC) ordered TRAI to obtain such information from the TSP and provide it to the individual. TRAI challenged this directive, arguing that it neither maintained nor was it required to maintain third-party complaint data of private subscribers under its regulations.

The Court’s ruling clarifies that TRAI’s statutory duty to collect information from TSPs is limited to its regulatory functions under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (“TRAI Act”). It does not extend to individually driven grievance redress or creating, collating, or interpreting third-party records solely on behalf of private citizens. This commentary explores the factual background, reasoning, and likely implications of the Court’s decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court set aside the CIC’s direction requiring TRAI to gather subscriber-specific complaint details from the TSP and deliver them under the RTI Act. According to the Court, TRAI’s regulatory mandate under Section 11 of the TRAI Act does not encompass searching for or compiling private information from TSPs for individual RTI requests. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that providing interpretations or opinions about applicable regulations (in this case, interpreting the meaning of “days” under the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2010) does not fall within the ambit of “information” that must be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Importantly, the Court also disapproved the CIC’s view that a consumer who may be dissatisfied with the conduct of TRAI could seek recourse only before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The judgment clarifies that challenges to TRAI orders or inaction, where appropriate, lie before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), established by the TRAI Act.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. TRAI v. Yash Pal: The Court relied on this earlier Delhi High Court decision to explain that TRAI’s power to call for information and explanations from TSPs must be “expedient” for the discharge of its statutory or regulatory functions. Thus, TRAI cannot requisition data simply to satisfy a private RTI request out of the scope of those functions.

2. CBSE & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: Cited for the principle that a public authority is obligated only to disclose information it genuinely “holds” or “controls”; it cannot be compelled to create, generate, or procure new data from unrelated sources in response to an RTI request.

3. Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer: Used to reinforce that the RTI Act does not oblige public authorities to provide legal interpretations, opinions, or justifications. The obligation to disclose extends only to existing information in their official records.

In addition to these, the judgment refers to Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82 for discussion on “private body” information accessible through a public authority. However, the Court found that unlike in Thalappalam, the data sought by the Respondent did not constitute information inherently collected or maintained by TRAI.

B. Legal Reasoning

• The Court highlighted that Sections 11 and 12 of the TRAI Act limit the power of TRAI to requisition TSP data solely to instances where it is “necessary” or “expedient” for fulfilling TRAI’s regulatory obligations. There is no obligation on TRAI to track every individual complaint lodged with a TSP.

• Regarding the RTI Act, the Court maintained that “information” must be that which is already held or extensively controlled by the public authority. Since TRAI does not normally record or compile the outcome of individual consumer complaints, responding to that aspect of the Respondent’s requests would require TRAI to acquire or create new information from TSPs. This stands outside TRAI’s statutory mandate and beyond the RTI Act’s scope.

• The Court categorically stated that any grievance connected to the TSP’s inaction is more properly a subject for the TSP’s in-house consumer appellate process under the Telecom Consumer Complaint Redressal Regulations, 2012, or other dispute resolution mechanisms like TDSAT where appropriate. The RTI Act is not a channel to enforce or extend TRAI’s jurisdiction to every consumer complaint.

C. Impact

1. Reinforcing Institutional Boundaries: The judgment reaffirms that the role of a regulatory body like TRAI cannot be conflated with an entity obligated to mediate each individual subscriber grievance. Doing so would disproportionately burden TRAI’s limited resources and derail it from broader regulatory and policy objectives.

2. Tightening RTI Obligations: By underscoring that public authorities are not bound to collate information they do not already possess, the decision prevents the RTI Act from becoming an instrument that forces agencies to expand beyond their core functions. It protects organizations with narrowly defined mandates from being inundated with requests that are unconnected to their primary statutory purposes.

3. Clarity for Consumers: Consumers who feel aggrieved by the TSP’s non-compliance or negligence are directed to follow dispute resolution procedures specifically laid down under telecom regulations (like TDSAT or consumer appellate authorities within TSPs). Hence, they will be better directed to the proper forums for redress, rather than expecting regulatory bodies to gather or interpret TSP-specific data.

4. Precedential Value: This ruling adds to existing jurisprudence on the scope of the RTI Act, reinforcing that the Act has boundaries: it does not transform a public authority into a private information collector or a legal advisory body.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public Authority’s Scope of “Information”: Under the RTI Act, “information” pertains only to records a public body already has or can legally obtain if it is crucial to its statutory mandate. If the data pertains to purely private matters within a company (like an individual’s consumer complaint logs), the regulator need not source it unless obliged by its own law.

• Power Under Section 12 of the TRAI Act: This provision allows TRAI to request executive details from TSPs, but only to the extent that it assists TRAI’s core functions such as overseeing compliance, regulating tariffs, or directing policy measures. It does not allow TRAI to act as a clearinghouse for all subscriber grievances.

• Redressal Forums and TDSAT: While consumers can indeed seek relief from TSPs under consumer complaint regulations, any challenge to TRAI’s own orders or alleged failures goes before the specialized Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). This ensures regulatory disputes are addressed in the correct forum and not conflated with consumer rights specialized fora like the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Conclusion

This decision sets a clear precedent that TRAI’s responsibilities under the RTI Act are confined to the information it holds for regulatory purposes. It underscores that a regulator, such as TRAI, cannot be compelled to gather detailed subscriber-specific data at the request of an individual under the RTI Act. Equally, it highlights that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to deliver subjective interpretations of regulations or to rectify private grievances wholly unrelated to their own records.

The judgment further clarifies the available legal routes for individuals dissatisfied with TSP services. Besides TSP-internal appeals, the specialist forum for addressing more substantial disputes over the exercise of TRAI’s powers is the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. Overall, this ruling provides a robust articulation of the respective roles of regulators, telecom service providers, and individual subscribers in balancing transparency objectives with realistic regulatory mandates.