ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the establishment of TRAI as a triadic dispute resolver in the shadow of the judicial process but also endowed with techno-economic expertise. This move away from dyadic relationships of reciprocity was occasioned by a need to signal credible commitment to investors. The shifting terrain of separation of powers is briefly touched upon, as well as the twin histories – legislative and judicial – of the evolution of the regulatory mechanism in the Indian telecom regulatory space. It is suggested that the legislation was by and large reactive (in spite of the neoliberal consensus for deregulation) and that the judiciary in India successfully embedded a ‘judicial mentality’ into the regulatory space. The twin tracks of policymaking and litigation that affected the course of the statute governing TRAI are discussed in this section. Important developments in the legislative and judicial efforts to create statutory backing for the sector regulator are brought out, including the Tata Cellular and Delhi Science Forum cases and the adoption of NTP 1994. The subsequent court cases in the Delhi High Court leading to the formulation of NTP 1999 are also discussed. The legislative history of the TRAI Act is brought out in detail, along with recommendations of the parliamentary committee. The abiding influence of the judiciary’s categorization of regulatory functions on the legislative product, how the licensees’ business plans were affected by disputes with the licensor, and how the distress faced by telecom services firms played out in the period between NTP 1994 and NTP 1999 are discussed in this chapter. The migration to a calling party pays (CPP) regime through tariff orders by TRAI is also discussed. The CPP regime, introduced by TRAI by tariff order and interconnection regulation, was challenged in court, and the chapter discusses the terms of the judgment that struck down the order and regulation. The court, by its judgment, sought to reduce regulatory uncertainty and imprecision by holding that the TRAI Act did not go far enough in practicing what it preached.
