Till 2009, telephone problems (defective billing, illegal charging for song downloads, illegal disconnection, etc.) could be taken to consumer courts and justice obtained quickly and inexpensively. The National Consumer Commission's website makes this explicit: "The provisions of this (Consumer Protection) Act cover 'goods' as well as 'services'....The services are in the nature of transport, telephone, electricity, housing, banking, insurance, medical treatment, etc." But in a decision that shocked the consumers, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Ashok Kumar Ganguly ruled on 1-9-2009 (III (2009) CPJ 71(SC)) that consumer courts can not decide disputes relating to telephones. As a consequence of this ruling, almost all consumer courts started rejecting complaints against deficiency in service by telephone companies. But now, in another surprise, the Government has issued an order to all consumer courts saying that despite the decision of the Supreme Court, consumer courts can take up disputes concerning phone service. In effect, the G.O. overrules the Supreme Court order!
The Department of Telecommunications has issued a letter to the Department of Consumer Affairs on 24-1-14 (available at the website) asking it to issue letters to all the District Consumer Fora and State Consumer Commissions in the country stating that the Supreme Court order does not apply and that consumer courts are competent to try consumer telephone disputes. Mysore Grahakara Parishat checked with the Karnataka State Consumer Commission and learnt that it had received the letter from the Department of Consumer Affairs and forwarded it to all the district consumer fora in the state. So now, all the consumer courts should be accepting complaints against service deficiency of telecom companies.
But it is shocking that the government is overruling an order of the Supreme Court through a letter to the consumer courts. In the constitutional setup of India, if the executive does not agree with a decision of the judiciary, it has just two options:appealing the decision or proposing a change in the law and getting it approved by the legislature. If the government thinks that the order of the Supreme Court in the matter of telephone disputes is faulty, it should file a petition and have the order overturned by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. In fact, the DoT letter mentions that the government of West Bengal wanted DoT to file such a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, but DoT turned the request down. If governments start overturning court orders through executive orders, the Constitution itself will be subverted and there will be anarchy.
What makes things even worse is that while there are several excellent reasons to reverse the Supreme Court order, the reason given in the DoT letter is feeble. The Supreme Court ruling relied on a provision of the Indian Telegraph Act which said that disputes concerning services provided or authorized by the telephone authority have to be decided only by an arbitrator (and hence not by consumer courts). The DoT letter argues that since 2000 when BSNL was hived off, DoT (which is the "telephone authority") does not provide any telecom services and all consumer disputes are with the service providers such as BSNL, Vodafone, Reliance, Tata Telecom, etc. and so the provision of the Telegraph Act relied by the Supreme Court does not apply. This argument is strictly not valid since the Telegraph Act says that even disputes related to services authorized by the "telephone authority" are outside the purview of consumer courts. Since the telecom services provided by the service providers are also authorized by DoT, one can not say that the Telegraph Act does not apply.
From the consumer point of view, the Supreme Court order should be overturned as it it denies telephone consumers a simple and inexpensive means of solving their problems. But overturning it through a letter to consumer courts is unconstitutional. It is imperative that DoT immediately files an SLP before the Supreme Court to reverse its decision.
Dwarkanath Narayan
The Department of Telecommunications has issued a letter to the Department of Consumer Affairs on 24-1-14 (available at the website) asking it to issue letters to all the District Consumer Fora and State Consumer Commissions in the country stating that the Supreme Court order does not apply and that consumer courts are competent to try consumer telephone disputes. Mysore Grahakara Parishat checked with the Karnataka State Consumer Commission and learnt that it had received the letter from the Department of Consumer Affairs and forwarded it to all the district consumer fora in the state. So now, all the consumer courts should be accepting complaints against service deficiency of telecom companies.
But it is shocking that the government is overruling an order of the Supreme Court through a letter to the consumer courts. In the constitutional setup of India, if the executive does not agree with a decision of the judiciary, it has just two options:appealing the decision or proposing a change in the law and getting it approved by the legislature. If the government thinks that the order of the Supreme Court in the matter of telephone disputes is faulty, it should file a petition and have the order overturned by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. In fact, the DoT letter mentions that the government of West Bengal wanted DoT to file such a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, but DoT turned the request down. If governments start overturning court orders through executive orders, the Constitution itself will be subverted and there will be anarchy.
What makes things even worse is that while there are several excellent reasons to reverse the Supreme Court order, the reason given in the DoT letter is feeble. The Supreme Court ruling relied on a provision of the Indian Telegraph Act which said that disputes concerning services provided or authorized by the telephone authority have to be decided only by an arbitrator (and hence not by consumer courts). The DoT letter argues that since 2000 when BSNL was hived off, DoT (which is the "telephone authority") does not provide any telecom services and all consumer disputes are with the service providers such as BSNL, Vodafone, Reliance, Tata Telecom, etc. and so the provision of the Telegraph Act relied by the Supreme Court does not apply. This argument is strictly not valid since the Telegraph Act says that even disputes related to services authorized by the "telephone authority" are outside the purview of consumer courts. Since the telecom services provided by the service providers are also authorized by DoT, one can not say that the Telegraph Act does not apply.
From the consumer point of view, the Supreme Court order should be overturned as it it denies telephone consumers a simple and inexpensive means of solving their problems. But overturning it through a letter to consumer courts is unconstitutional. It is imperative that DoT immediately files an SLP before the Supreme Court to reverse its decision.
Dwarkanath Narayan