CIC Can't Direct TRAI To Requisition Information From TSPs Under RTI Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Central Information Commission is not empowered to direct TRAI to requisition information from the TSP and provide it to the RTI Applicant under the Right to Information Act.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition against order of CIC directing TRAI to requisition information from Vodafone pertaining to an RTI Applicant’s complaints and provide the same to him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The single-bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, "..the Court finds merit in the Petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order. The CIC erred in directing TRAI to requisition information from the TSP, Vodafone, and provide it to the Respondent under the RTI Act. TRAI’s authority to request information from TSPs is confined to fulfilling its regulatory functions under the TRAI Act and the TCCCPR 2010. It does not extend to addressing individual grievances or accessing customer-specific information solely for dissemination under the RTI framework."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Ankoor Sood while the Respondent appeared In-Person.

The Petitioner had argued that the CIC's directive misconstrues the regulatory framework established under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, and wrongly expands the scope of TRAI’s powers, rendering the order legally unsustainable. It submitted that substantial portion of the Respondent’s queries pertains to the interpretation of the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2010, which cannot be provided, being beyond the scope of the RTI Act. It further submitted that the Respondent also sought information regarding the status of complaints lodged with his TSP, Vodafone, however, such information is not maintained by TRAI and doesn't form part of its records. It averred that TRAI is neither obligated nor authorized to collect, collate, or create information afresh for an RTI applicant, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay.

It further submitted that its authority to requisition information is limited to fulfilling its regulatory functions under Section 11 of the TRAI Act and Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act does not empower the Petitioner to address individual complaints made to TSPs. The Petitioner submitted that it does not have the capacity to manage or compile information regarding individual complaints lodged by customers with their respective TSPs. It was submitted that the impugned order misinterpreted Sections 11 and 12 of the TRAI Act, as well as Regulations 20, 21, and 22 of the TCCCPR 2010.

On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the definition of ‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes information related to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority under any law. Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act empowers the Petitioner to request any information or explanation from the TSPs regarding their affairs, as required by TRAI. Additionally, Section 13 grants the Petitioner the power to issue directions to TSPs for the effective discharge of TRAI’s functions under Section 11(1) of the TRAI Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner has the authority to access the information sought by the Respondent concerning Unsolicited Commercial Communications,14 which TSPs are obligated to maintain under the TCCCPR 2010.

He further submitted that the Petitioner can also invoke Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to seek the requisite information from the TSP, thereby fulfilling their statutory obligations under the RTI framework. He averred that that the Petitioner is not required to generate, compile, or create the requested information. Rather, the duty and responsibility of the Petitioner is limited to directing the TSP to disclose the information already available in their records to him.

The Court at the outset observed that the information sought pertains to diverse issues and the queries for which information was not furnished can be classified into two broad categories: (i) queries pertaining to the status of the Respondent’s complaints lodged with the TSP, Vodafone; and (ii) requests seeking TRAI’s interpretation of the term ‘days’ as used in the TCCCPR 2010.

It went onto delineate the scope of TRAI’s authority under the TRAI Act in relation to the information sought and observed, "The information sought by the Respondent regarding the status of his complaints lodged with Vodafone, does not pertain to TRAI’s regulatory functions under Section 11. Rather, it arises from the Respondent’s personal grievance relating to inaction by the TSP. Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act does not empower the Petitioner to requisition customer data from TSPs for the resolution of individual complaints. Moreover, the TCCCPR 2010, does not obligate TRAI to collect or maintain information relating to individual customer grievances lodged with TSPs."

The Court cited Supreme Court's ruling in CBSE case held that a public authority is obligated to disclose only the information it possesses or controls.

"It is neither required to collect information from a private entity, nor to compile or create information to satisfy an RTI applicant. Applying this principle, the Petitioner is under no legal obligation to collect, compile, or generate the information sought by the Respondent, which is neither a part of their records nor statutory functions," the Court observed.

It was of the view that requiring TRAI to retrieve information about individual complaints from TSPs would impose an impractical and onerous burden on the Petitioner.

"The Petitioner’s regulatory functions under the TRAI Act do not encompass addressing individual grievances or requisitioning customer-specific data from TSPs for dissemination under the RTI Act. Therefore, while the emphasis on exercising discretion and judiciousness in furnishing information is valid, it cannot override the statutory constraints that define TRAI’s authority," the Court observed.

The Court also found the CIC’s observation requiring the Respondent to seek redressal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was misplaced and beyond its statutory mandate.

"TRAI is not a service provider or a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and grievance against TRAI’s actions or inactions must be pursued before the TDSAT, as established under the TRAI Act. 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," the Court conlcuded.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: TRAI v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra (2025:DHC:30)

Click here to read/ download Judgement: