Telecom tribunal reforms to handle data protection pleas

‘Matters relating to telecommunications are fundamentally distinct from matters concerning privacy and data protection’
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

In early January this year, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) released the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (Rules) under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act). Several criticisms of this draft have emerged, which include the Union government’s discretion to appoint members to the Data Protection Board (DPB or Board). Since the DPB has quasi-judicial functions, the control of the executive over appointments to the DPB have raised concerns on the separation of powers and the independence of the DPB.

The Act and draft Rules also state that appeals from the DPB’s decisions will be filed in digital form before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The TDSAT must dispose of appeals within six months. The feasibility of this dispute resolution mechanism is questionable. However, there are three institutional reforms that will equip the TDSAT to handle appeals from the DPB. These are the appointment of a technical member with expertise in data protection; increased capacity to swiftly dispose of appeals, and, technological updates to process digital filings.

Need for a specialist

First, there must be a technical member with expertise in data protection on the TDSAT. Tribunals are seen as better equipped to handle sector-specific matters, since they have technical members with sectoral expertise. Section 14C of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 states that a member of the TDSAT should have been a Secretary to the Government (or the equivalent thereof) for at least two years or have expertise in “technology, telecommunications, industry, commerce or administration”. The TDSAT is ostensibly equipped to handle appeals under the TRAI Act and the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

However, the increasingly important field of data protection poses a unique set of concerns and challenges, and matters relating to telecommunications are fundamentally distinct from matters concerning privacy and data protection. Such appeals may involve understanding and applying legal provisions on consent, access to personal data, and the processing, storage, transfer and unauthorised use of personal data. These issues are substantially different from issues in the telecom sector, which underscore the need for specialised knowledge in data protection laws and privacy principles. Any such appointment will require an amendment to Section 14C of the TRAI Act to necessitate the appointment of a technical member with expertise in data protection and privacy.

The burden of cases

Second, any move to designate the TDSAT as an appellate tribunal must consider its capacity to hear and dispose of appeals. Interestingly, the TDSAT was not always envisaged to be the appellate body for the DPB. The 2018 Bill on personal data protection proposed the establishment of a new tribunal, consistent with the recommendation of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna committee report to set up a new tribunal or confer powers to an existing tribunal. This changed in 2022, when another Bill proposed that appeals be filed with High Courts. This may have been counterintuitive, as the increasing workload of High Courts has, over time, translated into the proliferation of tribunals.

The TDSAT is, however, combating its own overburdened docket. Of the cases filed between February 2020 to February 2025, there are still 3,448 that are pending. Appeals under the newly enacted Telecommunications Act will also increasingly occupy the TDSAT’s time. In this broader context, it is unrealistic to expect the TDSAT to dispose of appeals as per the Act’s timeline, i.e., within six months. In January 2025, the TDSAT had only one member, a technical person, on its sole bench. The absence of a judicial member is concerning, as the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that judicial members are essential on tribunals’ benches.

It is, therefore, unclear how the TDSAT, with its current capacity, will keep up with appeals from the DPB timelines in the draft Rules. Increased budget allocations, and, consequently, more benches of the TDSAT, may alleviate some of this caseload.

Updating digital infrastructure

Third, the TDSAT must undertake technological updates to satisfy the provisions of the Act. The draft Rules propose that appeals will be filed in digital form. However, the TDSAT’s website does not instil public confidence, and the TDSAT will, therefore, need to significantly update its website for smoother navigation, increased access to information on pending and completed cases, and efficient systems for digital filings. The TRAI Annual Report for 2023 indicates that the TDSAT has implemented a new “legal cases management system” but the status of implementation and impact of this system on the TDSAT’s caseload is unclear. A robust digital infrastructure is critical to support the complexity, and potentially large volume, of data protection appeals.

The TDSAT must undertake institutional reforms to effectively discharge its functions under the Act. These include the appointment of a technical member with expertise in data protection, increasing its capacity to dispose of appeals, and updating its technological infrastructure. The TDSAT must also be accountable in each of these respects. One way of ensuring accountability is through the publication of annual reports, which should include information on the number of appeals filed, the number of appeals allowed or dismissed, the number of pending appeals, and key issues involved in each appeal. This information should be provided for each type of matter — for example, telecom, broadcasting, and data protection. As data protection takes on a more critical role in India’s digital governance framework, the TDSAT’s ability to effectively manage such matters will be key to ensuring the rule of law and protecting individual rights.

Natasha Aggarwal is a Senior Research Fellow at TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation. The views expressed are personal