Supreme Court delineates TRAI and TDSAT's respective powers.

The Supreme Court has held that the power of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to issue directions under Section 13 of the TRAI Act, 1997 is a regulatory and administrative function and not an adjudicatory one.

A Bench of Justices S V Bhatti and N V Anjaria clarified that issuing a direction to comply with existing regulations, or issuing a show-cause notice for non-compliance, does not usurp the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to decide disputes between service providers.

Also Read| Delhi High Court directs TRAI to expedite consultations with stakeholders & give recommendations to Centre on proposed OTT services framework

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by TRAI against an order passed by the TDSAT, which had held a show-cause notice issued by the Authority to be illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

What can TRAI do, and what is exclusively for TDSAT?

The Supreme Court held that TRAI can issue regulatory directions and seek compliance with them, but it cannot finally adjudicate disputes between service providers. That function belongs exclusively to the TDSAT under Section 14 of the TRAI Act.

"TRAI may record, for the limited purpose of enforcement, a prima facie finding of non-compliance, but it cannot render a final and binding adjudication of the parties’ inter se rights, award damages, quantify arrears, entertain counterclaims or mould reliefs. These functions belong to the TDSAT," the Bench said.

Court explained that a true adjudicatory determination requires the parties to present their respective cases, ascertainment of facts through evidence and a final and binding decision disposing of the dispute.

TRAI, the Court said, is not empowered to perform these functions while exercising its regulatory powers.

TRAI's prima facie finding is not final adjudication

Court further clarified that a finding by TRAI of a prima facie breach, made for the purpose of regulatory enforcement, does not amount to a binding final determination of the contractual rights of the parties.

Also Read| TRAI moves Delhi High Court against excessive ads by news channels

Thus, the Authority's action in issuing a direction or a show-cause notice for non-compliance does not amount to adjudication of an inter se dispute between service providers.

The Bench held that neither the direction issued by TRAI nor the subsequent show-cause notice bore the essential attributes of "adjudication". Therefore, TRAI had not trespassed upon the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of the TDSAT.

Court observed that the TDSAT's order had effectively rendered TRAI a passive statutory authority, rather than one capable of exercising its regulatory powers to enforce and implement its regulations and directions.

Who can impose penalty for disobeying TRAI's directions?

The Supreme Court also clarified the respective roles of TRAI and the criminal court when a person disobeys a lawful direction issued by the Authority.

The disobedience of a lawful direction issued by TRAI under the Act attracts criminal liability under Section 29 of the TRAI Act. However, the determination of such criminal liability can be made only by a competent court not below the rank of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or a Chief Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

TRAI's role in such a case is restricted to initiating the enforcement process as a complainant under Section 34.

"Upon non-compliance with a valid direction, TRAI’s role is confined to that of a complainant under Section 34; it can neither adjudge the guilt of the defaulter nor determine, levy or recover the fine under Section 29, which is the exclusive province of a court not below that of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or a Chief Judicial Magistrate of the First Class," the Bench said.

Supreme Court upholds TRAI's broad regulation-making power

Court also examined the scope of TRAI's regulation-making power under Section 36 of the Act.

It held that the power vested in TRAI under Section 36(1) is "wide and pervasive" and is intended to carry out the purposes of the Act.

"The power to make regulations vested in the Authority under Section 36(1) is wide and pervasive, intended to carry out the purposes of the Act. This power is subject only to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, and is not constrained by the specific topics enumerated in Section 36(2) or by other functional sections," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court consequently allowed TRAI's civil appeal and set aside the TDSAT's order dated March 10, 2010.

Background of the case

The dispute arose from a complaint concerning M/s Polimer Cable Network, Salem, Tamil Nadu, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), and local cable operators (LCOs).

The LCOs had complained to TRAI that the MSO had abruptly disconnected cable television signals for which they had contracted.

Also Read| Supreme Court refuses interim stay on Bombay HC order upholding new Tariff orders of TRAI

Following an independent investigation by the Commissioner of Police, TRAI concluded that the MSO had, prima facie, failed to comply with a statutory direction issued by the Authority on August 21, 2008.

TRAI subsequently issued a show-cause notice on February 19, 2009, giving the MSO three weeks to explain why a formal complaint should not be filed against it before a court under Section 34 of the TRAI Act for violating TRAI's directions.

The notice was issued purportedly under Sections 11 and 13 of the TRAI Act read with the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004, as amended by the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection (3rd Amendment) Regulation, 2006.

Aggrieved by the notice, the MSO approached the TDSAT. The Tribunal held that the notice was illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

The Supreme Court has now set aside that order, holding that TRAI's exercise of its regulatory powers to enforce its directions did not amount to adjudication.

Case Title: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs M/s Polimer Cable Network And Others

Bench: Justices S V N Bhatti and N V Anjaria

Date of Judgment: July 24, 2026

Tags: