Summary:
Consumer organisations have opposed TRAI’s proposal to remove the advisory committee involved in telecom complaint appeals, arguing that it provides an important independent voice for consumers. While telecom operators support transferring appellate authority to senior company officials, consumer groups believe the move could lead to bias and have instead suggested modernising the committee through digital processes and fixed response timelines. TRAI has also proposed improvements to grievance redressal systems, including enhanced IVR options, real-time complaint tracking, and financial penalties for poor complaint handling. Telecom operators have sought more time for implementation and raised concerns about additional reporting requirements and penalty provisions, while consumer groups have backed stricter enforcement measures to improve service quality and complaint resolution.
Consumer rights organisations have raised objections to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) proposal to discontinue the advisory committee that currently reviews consumer complaint appeals and instead vest appellate decision-making solely with senior officials of telecom service providers.
As part of the proposed revisions to the Telecom Consumers Complaint Redressal Regulations, TRAI has recommended doing away with the advisory committee, which presently includes representatives from both telecom operators and consumer bodies. The regulator has maintained that the existing arrangement often slows down the appeals process because of difficulties in coordinating meetings and ensuring member availability.
While telecom companies largely endorsed the proposal, consumer organisations challenged TRAI’s reasoning. In its response, the Civil Action Group argued that delays are primarily caused by telecom operators, which often take several weeks or even months to forward complaints to the advisory committee. Another consumer body claimed that operators frequently fail to present grievances before the committee within a reasonable timeframe.
Consumer advocates contended that removing the committee would weaken consumer protection by eliminating an independent perspective from the appeals process and increasing the risk of institutional bias. Rather than abolishing the mechanism, they suggested modernising it through virtual meetings, digital consultations, and fixed timelines of five to seven days for issuing recommendations.
Separately, TRAI has proposed enhancements to telecom grievance redressal systems, including mandatory IVR options for filing appeals, speaking to customer service representatives, and tracking complaint status. The draft rules also require operators’ websites and mobile applications to provide real-time updates, acknowledgements, and information regarding technician assignments.
Telecom operators have responded by saying that implementing these changes would require extensive upgrades to technology platforms, customer service systems, and network infrastructure. Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea have requested an implementation window of six to nine months, instead of the 30-day period proposed by the regulator.
The operators have also opposed TRAI’s proposal for detailed key performance indicator reporting to both the regulator and company leadership every quarter. In addition, telecom companies objected to the proposed financial penalties for inadequate complaint handling, arguing that terms such as “unsatisfactory resolution” are subjective and could result in inconsistent regulatory enforcement.
Reliance Jio stated that such penalties could amount to double punishment, noting that telecom operators are already liable under existing quality-of-service regulations covering network and billing issues.
Consumer groups, however, supported the introduction of financial disincentives, arguing that meaningful penalties are necessary to ensure operators improve complaint resolution standards rather than treating timelines as mere procedural obligations.
