at the start of the 1990s, the DoT was very much the dominant actor in the Indian telecom

sector,
being the principal policymaker and service provider. upholding the governmental policy decision,
while adding a new requirement (of setting up TRAI) to meet the standards of legality imposed by the
Court.the federal government announced its intention to establish the Telecom Regulatory Authority
of India (“TRAI”), and an Ordinance was hurriedly drafted and approved by the President on 27
January 1996. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Delhi Science Forum case was delivered on
2 February 1996, soon after the promulgation of the TRAI Ordinance.
eventually replaced by the TRAI Act in March 1997, created a body that had limited powers.
In its original form, TRAI was vested with both administrative and judicial functions, along the lines of
regulatory authorities in the US. However, its adjudicatory powers were considerably limited.
Conspicuously absent from the latter was the power to resolve disputes between the DoT and
private service providers. unlike its British and American counterparts, enable TRAI to intervene in
DoT’s exclusive capacity
to issue and cancel licences or to allocate radio spectrum. The TRAI could only provide
recommendations on the most significant aspects of telecom regulation, but the federal government
was not bound to implement TRAI’s directives, guidelines or recommendations. This legitimately
raised doubts about TRAI’s capacity to be an independent regulator as, typically, it is the regulator
whose decisions are binding upon all service providers, including the government.
This included the 1998 Delhi High Court case of Bharti Cellular which declared that the government
did not need to seek recommendations from TRAI before exercising its licencing powers, and that
such recommendations of TRAI did not having binding effect.
Introduction to tdsat(need)
The broad elements of the NTP-99 were incorporated into the TRAI Amendment Act of 2000. This
amendment brought fundamental changes within the structure of TRAI. It divided the TRAI into two
bodies: one to regulate, and the other to adjudicate. The regulatory body would continue to be
called TRAI and would be headed by a person having special knowledge of telecom, industry, finance
etc., while the adjudicatory body would be called the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate
Tribunal (“TDSAT”) and would be headed by a sitting or former Judge of the Supreme Court or the
Chief Justice of a High Court. The TDSAT was to be a quasi-judicial body, and its Chairman and
members were to be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India.
Its jurisdiction was also widened, and it was empowered to decide all disputes including those where
the governmental service provider was involved.
Provision discuss (legislative framework)
Commentary by articles

1
Answer to the questions(journey) through case laws
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal 31st
January, 2005
An appeal was filed by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited - respondent no.2 (hereinafter
referred to as the MTNL) challenging a regulation framed by TRAI in exercise of its powers under
Section 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The
TRAI had called into question the jurisdiction of TDSAT to entertain the appeal which objection was
rejected by the impugned decision.
The TRAI was established under the statute to regulate the telecommunication
services.Consequently amendments were proposed with the object of strengthening and increasing
investor confidence and creating a level playing field between public and private operators.
amendments effected by this Ordinance inter alia included a distinction between the
recommendatory, advisory and the regulatory function of the authority. The contention of the
petitioner is that the regulations were statutory regulations and the tribunal was a creation of the
statute. The Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to declare the regulations invalid as an Appellate
Forum.
(a) If TRAI can make Regulations in the discharge of its functions under sub-clauses(ii), (iii) and
(iv) of clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 11? (b) Can Regulations under sub clauses (ii),
(iii) and (iv) be framed under general powers of sub Section (1) of Section 36 when read with
sub-section (2) thereof?”
Examination of the scheme of the TRAI Act shows that the statute provides for integration of power
in the TRAI under Section 11 of the Act by vesting legislative, executive and judicial powers in the
same body. The petitioner, TRAI, exercises its legislative powers by making regulations; executive
powers by administering the regulations framed by it, issuing directions, taking decisions and further
by taking action against any entity violating its regulations, decisions and directions. It exercises its
judicial powers by adjudicating the disputes in the implementation thereof.
The Appellate Forum constituted under Section 14 of the TRAI Act being the TDSAT is also
empowered to exercise its jurisdiction conferred by statute without any limitation and the scrutiny
by this expert Appellate Forum is of a wide import, restricted only by the requirement to comply with
the constitutional mandate and the statutory provisions.
Clariant International Limited vs. SEBI AIR 2004 SC 4236- The jurisdiction of the appellate authority
under the Act is not in any way fettered by the statute and, thus, it exercises all the jurisdiction as
that of the Board. It can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the same manner as the Board.

2
TDSAT and its powers as an expert appellate forum was considered by the Apex Court in 2003(3) SCC
186 entitled Cellular Operators Association of India and others vs. Union of India.
Since the Tribunal is the original authority to adjudicate any dispute between a licensor and a
licensee or between two or more service providers or between a service provider and a group of
consumers and since the Tribunal has to hear and dispose of appeals against the directions, decisions
or order of TRAI, it is difficult for us to import the selfcontained restrictions and limitations of a court
under the judge-made law. The authority and jurisdiction of an appellate expert forum, its
importance and necessity, therefore, cannot be belittled or narrowed down by strict or a narrow
interpretation of the statutory provisions.
West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. CESC Limited reported at 2002(8) SCC 715--
Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 which is almost pari materia with
Section 14 of the TRAI Act with which the present case is concerned. a similar provision is made for
an appeal to a special Appellate Tribunal and thereafter a further appeal to the Supreme Court on
questions of law only.there can be no manner of doubt that the TDSAT is an expert body and is
statutorily empowered to exercise jurisdiction without any limitation and its powers are wider than
the powers of the appellate court under Section 18 of the TRAI Act.
Judicial review in India comprises three aspects: judicial review of legislative action; judicial review of
judicial decisions and judicial review of administrative actions.
So long as the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and that of this Court under
Article 32 is retained, there is no reason why the power to test the validity of legislations against the
provisions of the Constitution cannot be conferred upon Administrative Tribunals created under the
Act or upon Tribunals created under Article 323-B of the Constitution.
L Chandra Kumar case--Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on
the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the
vires of statutory provisions are questioned. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to
test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules.
Examination of the provisions of Section 36 whereby the TRAI is empowered to make regulations
shows that it is specifically mentioned therein that regulations would be made by notification in
respect of the subjects set out therein. Section 36(2)(e) empowers the TRAI to make regulations in
respect of the subject matter of Section 11(1)(b)(viii) and Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. In this view of
the matter, I have no manner of doubt that the TRAI can validly make regulations in respect of only
such subject matters which have been specifically specified under Section 36 of the enactment. It is
necessary to bear in mind the spirit, intendment and purpose of the TRAI Act, 1997 and the functions
which the authority is required to discharge.

3
Impact of the interpretation

4
New
Dividing of functions- legislative nono regulatory yesyes
Bsnl v trai
 The power under Section 36 is legislative as opposed to administrative. By virtue of Section
37, the regulations made under the Act are placed on par with the rules which can be framed
by the Central Government under Section 35 and being in the nature of subordinate
legislations, the rules and regulations have to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament
which can annul or modify the same. Thus, the regulations framed by the Authority can be
made ineffective or modified by Parliament and by no other body.
 under Section 36(1) to make regulations is wide and pervasive. The exercise of this power is
only subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed under Section 35 thereof.
There is no other limitation on the exercise of power by the Authority under Section 36(1). It
is not controlled or limited by Section 36(2) or Sections 11, 12 and 13.
 Argued--L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 and argued that whenever
Parliament wishes to confer power of judicial review on an adjudicatory body other than the
regular Courts, it has enacted a provision like Section 14 of the 1985 Act.
 ‘direction’, ‘decision’ or ‘order’ used in Section 14(b) should not be given over-stretched
meaning to empower TDSAT to entertain challenge to the regulations made under Section 36
of the Act, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation.
 Learned Solicitor General submitted that it would be an extremely anomalous position if the
rules framed under Section 35 and the regulations framed under Section 36 are challenged
before TDSAT and validity thereof is examined by a Bench comprising non-judicial members.
The learned Solicitor General relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in PTC
India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603
 n L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (supra) and argued that every Tribunal constituted
under an Act of Parliament or State Legislature is empowered to exercise power of judicial
review qua the rules and regulations. They also relied upon the judgments of this Court in
Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 186, Hotel & Restaurant
Association v. Star India (P) Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 753, Union of India v. TATA Teleservices
(Maharashtra) Ltd. (2007)