Explore the in-depth legal analysis conducted by the court regarding TRAI’s power to demand disclosure of segmented offers in the telecommunications industry. This summary highlights key points from the case, emphasizing the importance of regulatory principles and confidentiality concerns. Stay tuned to understand the implications of court decisions on telecom tariff orders and non-discriminatory practices.
Facts
- TRAI issued a Telecommunication Tariff (63 Amendment) Order in 2018.
- Bharti Airtel Limited, Idea Cellular Limited, and Vodafone Mobile Services Limited challenged the Tariff Order.
- The challenge was mainly against the ‘Reporting Requirements’ and ‘Significant Market Power.’
- TDSAT set aside the Telecom Tariff 63 Amendment Order concerning changes to SMP and related provisions.
- TRAI filed Civil Appeals against the final order of TDSAT
- The Appeals were admitted on 21.01.2019
- One grievance was about TRAI’s insistence on disclosure of segmented discounts/concessions
- Telecom Service Providers sought interim stay of the Tariff Order during pending appeals
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Applicant (TRAI) contends that TSPs are obligated to offer tariffs transparently and non-discriminatorily.
- TSPs argue that segmented offers are confidential trade practices.
- Applicant requested information on segmented offers from TSPs, which was not disclosed.
- TRAI filed application seeking interim direction for TSPs to disclose information on segmented offers.
- Applicant provided data showing lack of disclosure of segmented offers to TRAI, hindering regulatory analysis.
- TDSAT did not see the need for reporting but allowed the applicant to request TSPs for details on segmented offers for existing customers.
- Respondents claim compliance with directions from the impugned order.
- TRAI has not received any complaints so far regarding the matter in question
- Respondents argue that TRAI cannot seek interim directions after failing to secure a stay of the impugned order
- Respondents are willing to provide details of segmented offers whenever requested by TRAI
- Granting interim directions as requested would be equivalent to allowing the appeal itself
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- TDSAT found that segmented offers and discounts within the target segment do not need to be reported as they do not amount to a tariff plan.
- Confidentiality is crucial and the Solicitor General agreed that it should be preserved.
- The TSPs were not aggrieved by the order of remand regarding segmented offers.
- TRAI has the power to issue Telecommunication Tariff Orders and ensure adherence to regulatory principles.
- Historical background on amendments to the Reporting Requirement was presented.
- TRAI’s power to demand details of segmented offers was not disputed, but the issue of confidentiality was emphasized.
- Telecommunication Tariff Orders are issued by TRAI in exercise of the power conferred by the Act.
- Changes to the Reporting Requirement were made through various Amendment Orders.
- Remand of the matter back to TRAI was ordered by TDSAT for settling the issue of segmented offers through open consultation process.
- The grant of interim directions did not amount to allowing the appeals, as multiple issues were involved.
- TRAI’s power to call for details regarding segmented offers was deemed essential for effective implementation of non-discrimination.
- The impugned order was eventually issued on 16.02.2018.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The Information Commission allowed the Instant Application (I.A.)
- Respondents are directed to disclose information/details regarding segmented offers to the applicant/appellant
Case Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. AND ORS. ETC. (2020 INSC 637)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000250-000252 / 2019
