LexCELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 1 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND A OTHERS v. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5017of2016) MAYll,2016 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ,) Telecom Consumers Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 - Validity of - As per the amendment of the Regulations every originating cellular mobile telephone service provider was made liable to credit the calling consumer with one rupee for each call drop, upto a maximum three call drops per day - Validity of the amendment challenged - High Court upheld its validity - On appeal, held: The amending Regulation is ultra vires the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 as it does not carry out the purpose of the Act - It is violative of the fundamental rights of the service providers as provided in Art. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - The Regulation is also liable to be struck down on the ground that it amounts to interference with the licence conditions of the service providers without authority of law and also because it completely avoids the adjudicatory process - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Constitution of India - Arts. 14 and 19(l)(g) - Quality of Service Regulations, 2009. Constitution of India: Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 19(6) - Constitutional validity of Telecom Consumers Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 - Held: In order to pass Constitutional muster u/Art.14, the Regulation should not be manifestly arbitrary - So far as Art.19(1)(g) is concerned, u!Art. 19(6), the State has to conform to two separate and independent tests i.e. test of 'reasonable restriction' and test of 'public interest' - The test of reasonable restriction is distinct from the test of the law being in general public interest - In the present casij though the Regulation might have been brought in the interest ojgeneral public, it is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violative of Art. 14 and is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamentr:Jl right of the service providers granted u/Art. l 9(1)(g) I B c D E F G H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A and the same has been framed without intelligent care and deliberation. Arts.19(l)(g) and 19(6) - A proper balance between the freedoms guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(g) and the control permitted u/Art. 19(6) must be struck in all cases before the impugned law can be B said to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest. c D Legislation: Validity of legislation - Held: A statute which is otherwise invalid as being unreasonable, cannot be saved or held valid by its being administered in a reasonable manner. Subordinate Legislation - Validity of - Held: A Regulation must be consistent with both letter as well as purpose of the parent Act - A Regulation contrary to the purpose of parent Act could be ultra vires the Act and hence invalid. Subordinate Legislation - Constitutionality of - Grounds for challenging - Held: Subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation. Subordinate Legislation - Requirement of transparency in - E Suggestion of the Court to Parliament to frame legislation by which all subordinate legislation is subject to transparent process - The transparency will not only reduce arbitrariness in subordinate legislation making, but would also conduce to openness in F governance. Interpretation of Statutes: Doctrine of reading down - Applicability of - The doctrine would apply only when general words used in a statute or regulation can oe confined in a particular manner so as not to infringe a constitutional right. G Reading down of a provision - Addition of something by the court to the provision which does not exist, would amount to legislations by court. Natural Justice - Ordinarily legislative functions do not require that natural justice be followed - Natural justice need not H be followed, except where the statute so provides. CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSN. OF INDIA v. TELECOM 3 REGULATORY AUTHROITY OF INDIA Words and Phrases: A 'Transparency' - Meaning of, in the context of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The power to make the Impugned Regulation i.e. Telecom Consumers Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 is traceable to Section 36(1) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. Though the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.