The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission directing the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) to demand information from the phone service provider and give it to a customer under the RTI Act.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said Trai requesting information from telecom service providers (TSP) was confined to fulfilling its regulatory functions and did not extend to addressing individual grievances or accessing customer-specific information solely for dissemination under the RTI framework.

The high court, in its order, said the CIC's observation requiring a customer 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 any grievance against Trai's actions or inactions must be pursued before the TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal), 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," it said.

The court therefore allowed Trai's plea against the CIC order.

"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 (consumer) under the RTI Act," the court held on January 7.

The consumer registered his cellphone number under the "fully blocked" category of the national do not call registry and despite requesting this service, Vodafone allegedly altered his "do not disturb" status without consent.

Aggrieved by the inaction on his formal complaints to the service provider, the man sought recourse under the RTI Act to obtain details on the status of his complaints.

The central public information officer provided him with the information but still dissatisfied, he filed an appeal and matter eventually landed in the CIC.

In June 2024, the CIC directed Trai to demand information on the man's complaints from Vodafone, and provide it to him under the RTI Act.

Trai, in its plea in the high court, argued the directive misconstrued the regulatory framework established under the Trai Act and wrongly expanded the scope of Trai's powers, rendering the order legally unsustainable.

The court acknowledged the larger issue of unsolicited commercial communications raised by the consumer that impact a sizeable population.