The Hindu : TDSAT ruling in telecom war today

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Apr 08, 2003

National

National

TDSAT ruling in telecom war today

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI APRIL 7. The telecom war between cellular and limited mobility phone companies took an interesting turn today after the Government, specifically the Communications Ministry, refused to make public the notings that paved the way for limited mobility.

The Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), which is hearing the case, refused to allow Government the privilege of keeping the files away from the public and will announce its order tomorrow.

It all happened after the TDSAT chief, D. P. Wadhwa, wanted to know "what happened between September 17, 1999 and October 9, 2000". He felt perusal of Government files could provide an answer to the change in the decision to prohibit hand-held phones since both dates are crucial in the annals of telecom liberalisation.

On September 17, 1999, the Government wrote to the TRAI stating that neither licence conditions nor the telecom policy allowed limited mobility. A year later, the TRAI was informed that the Telecom Commission had recommended the use of hand-held sets for FSPs. This decision thus allowed FSPs to offer limited mobility.

Counsel for the Government felt that the process, which permitted the use of hand-held sets, was not material. The Freedom of Information Bill, the "most advanced form of promoting openness", also protects notings on Government files because officials should be given the freedom to express their opinions. He urged the court to take a view and hear arguments on the policy itself since the files are not for "outside exposure or publicity". This stand moved Mr. Justice Wadhwa to comment: "This surprises me since you are the defendant... you mean to say that see the decision and that is the end of the matter?"

Tuesday would be crucial for the Communications Minister, Arun Shourie. In case the TDSAT asks the Government to make the files public, he would have two options. The first would be to accede to the court's wish in keeping with his previous crusades for transparency in the Government's decision-making process. The second, dictated by the compulsions of real politic, would be to approach the Supreme Court. This approach is bound to delay the legal process of completing the hearings at the earliest. The Minister could not be contacted for comments.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National