Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. Reverting back to the statutory provisions before us, assuming that the Proviso is repugnant to the main provision it is the Proviso, being contextually and chronologically posterior, which has to prevail. However, it is our understanding that there is no repugnancy in the two provisions and that the intention of Parliament is palpably plain that both must co-exist possibly until such time as the Broadcasting Act is brought onto the statute book, or a Convergence Bill is enacted dealing with all three aspects of this activity viz. telegraph, telecommunication and broadcasting. Keeping this enunciation of law in perspective, we are of the opinion that far from being clumsy or awkward drafting, as contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the definition in Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act has perforce to be in its current conformation. The words "but shall not include broadcasting services" must essentially stand alongside the Proviso, which empowers the Central Government to notify other services along with Broadcasting to be treated as telecommunication services and thereby fall within the parameters of the TRAI Act. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners had drawn our attention to Entry 31 of List I Of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India which mentions - "Posts and Telegraph : Telephones, Wireless, Broadcasting and other forms of communications". Evidently, far from being a strangebed-fellow, broadcasting falls in the same category as telecommunications. This is also clear from the fact that broadcasting has specifically been mentioned in 2(k) as not being included in the definition of telecommunication services, which would have been unworthy of mention unless it was seen as inherently similar. We do not think it relevant that while costing of telecommunication services can be easily computed broadcasting present problems.

32. We shall now shift focus to Section 11 of the TRAI Act which has been substantially altered by the Amending Act of 2000 inasmuch as its first sub-section has been completely substituted by the extant one. However, the provision with which we are presently concerned, viz. Sub-section (2), has not been touched. It empowers TRAI to determine and prescribe "the rates at which the telecommunication services within and outside India shall be provided." Its Proviso bestows discretion on TRAI "to notify different rates for different persons or class of persons for similar telecommunication services and where different rates are fixed as aforesaid the Authority shall record the reasons therefore. The fact that different treatment can be meted out to similarly placed persons is indeed far-reaching. The contention of the Petitioners is that the power of TRAI to fix rates infringes Article 19 of the Constitution beyond the contours of its infrangibility. Their argument is that rate or price fixation is not one of the exceptions contemplated by Article 19(2) and hence must be struck down being ultra vires to the Constitution. Reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expressions can be imposed by the State (i) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India; (ii) the security of the State; (iii) friendly relations with Foreign States; (iv) public order, decency or morality; (v) in relation to contempt of Court; (vi) defamation and (vii)incitement to an offence. With regard to the powers of price fixation, emphasis has been laid by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1) Romesh Thapar v. The State of Madras , (2) Sakal, (3) Benett Coleman, (4) Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India (5) and CAB wherein the following enunciation of the law is to be found:

DOES THE TRAI ACT SUFFER FROM VICE OF EXCESSIVE DELEGATION

40. Section 11(2) of TRAI Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, the Authority may notify the rates at which telecommunication services shall be provided; the Authority may notify different rates for different persons or class of person for reason to be recorded; the Authority shall not act against the sovereign and integrity of India; or the security of the State; or friendly relations with foreign States; or public order, decency or morality. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contend that this Section bestows unchannelised, unguided, undefined and untrammeled powers on the delegate namely the Authority, and hence should be struck down. What has to be ascertained in every case where such a submission has been put forward is whether the legislative policy has been delineated before the delegation is made, and also whether a correctional system of superintendence and supervision of the delegate's actions has been put in place. Courts should also consider the degree to which delegation is inevitable or necessary or expedient. The frontiers within which the Delegate/Authority must function is further identifiable from indicia available in the Act itself. The Preamble enjoins that the Authority should endeavor to (a) regulate the telecommunication services, (b) protect the interests of service providers and consumers of the telecom sector, (c) to promote and ensure orderly growth of the telecom sector. Jural experience would vouch that fees or rates prescribed in the statute invariably become unrealistic aeons before they receive corrective attention. Where fees, tariffs and rates are dependent on market forces it is expedient to leave their determination and change to the Executive or the Authority or the Regulators, as the case may be. Where redressal machinery is provided for such delegation should be impervious to objection. Inasmuch as the TRAI Act provides for the establishment of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) with jurisdiction inter alia to hear and dispose of appeals against any direction, decision or order of the Authority, this important safeguard against any possible abuse or arbitrary exercise of power is duly in place. A second Appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is also provided for.

46. Furthermore, the TRAI is clearly competent to prescribe the conditions and tariff impugned before us by virtue of the TRAI Act itself. We have already upheld the legality of Section 2(1)(k), the consequence of which is that broadcasting is undeniably and unassailably covered by that statute. TRAI accordingly is expected to make recommendation inter alia in respect of "measures to facilitate competition and promote efficiency in the operation of telecommunication services so as to facilitate growth in services (see Section 11(1)(a)(iv))". TRAI must regulate arrangements amongst service providers of sharing their revenue derived from providing telecommunication services (see Section 11(1)(b)(iv)) and generally to perform such other function including such administrative and financial functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (see Section 11(1)(d). However, on a perusal of Section 11(2) there is no scope for any controversy concerning the competence of the TRAI to prescribe the impugned rates at which telecommunication services are to be provided. Therefore, de hors the CTN Act and the CTN Rules TRAI is otherwise competent to fix tariffs, as also to prescribe the Standard Interconnection Agreements.