Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

3 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION & ORS.

2018 INSC 102230 October 2018Dismissed

Star India Private Limited challenged the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and the accompanying Tariff Order, alleging that TRAI had overstepped its jurisdiction by regulating the content, pricing and packaging of TV channels, which they argued

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59930 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, including acid‑attack survivors with facial disfigurements and a blind individual, challenged the mandatory digital KYC/e‑KYC/video‑KYC procedures for being inaccessible and discriminatory. They argued that requirements such as capturing a live photograph and performing a liveness check (e.g., eye‑blin

B.S.N.LversusRELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD.

2010 INSC 82729 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

BSNL alleged that Reliance Communications had routed international calls as local calls, thereby evading higher Interconnect Usage Charges (IUC) and Access Deficit Charges (ADC). BSNL invoked clause 6.4.6 of their inter‑connect agreement to levy a large sum as a "penalty". The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate

G H CENTURY RAYON LIMITEDversusIVP LIMITED AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 128827 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Century Rayon Ltd (appellant) sought to erect 100 kV electricity transmission towers on land owned by IVP Ltd (first respondent) under a sanction from MSEDC. IVP Ltd filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging the contractors were excavating its land without permission. The trial court and High Court imposed a tempo

AVISHEK GOENKAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2012 INSC 18827 April 2012Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, led by Avishek Goenka, raised a public‑interest writ alleging that prepaid SIM cards were being sold without proper identity verification, posing security risks and violating Department of Telecommunications (DoT) notifications. The petitioner sought strict enforcement of verification norms, physical r

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusANWAR OSMAN SUMBHANIYA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 28027 February 2019Dismissed

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya and others by a Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appeal centered on whether the prior sanctions issued under Section 20‑A(2) of TADA for the 1993 and 2005 prosecutions were valid. The S

UNION OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC.ETC.

2019 INSC 118724 October 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the definition of "gross revenue" in clause 19.1 of the telecom licence agreement, which determines the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) for licence fee calculation, could be challenged by the licensees. It held that the contractual definition is binding, that TRAI and the Telecom Dispute

DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONSversusGUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.

2010 INSC 64324 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Managing Director of Gujarat Co‑operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. received two unusually large telephone bills for international "party" calls and alleged that the calls were made from other numbers. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) held the bills correct; an administrative appeal was rejected and

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 80124 August 2017Reference answered

The case arose from a reference to a nine-judge bench to determine whether the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, particularly in light of the Aadhaar scheme's collection of biometric data. The petitioners argued that privacy is an intrinsic part of the rig

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEDversusVODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED

2016 INSC 90623 September 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined multiple appeals filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) against Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd., Bharti Airtel Ltd., and Tata Teleservices Ltd. concerning demands for interconnect usage charges on calls that allegedly lacked authentic Caller Line Identification (CLI). BSNL relied on a Departme

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS ETCversusM/S TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. ETC.

2022 INSC 99622 September 2022Case Partly allowed

BSNL issued a circular on 12 June 2012 revising infrastructure charges for active links of licensed telecom operators, stating it would apply retrospectively from 1 April 2009 with a 10% annual increase. The operators had already paid charges upfront under the earlier 2006 circular and challenged the retrospective levy

AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED AND ORS.versusCAPT. GURDARSHAN KAUR SANDHU

2019 INSC 94622 August 2019Dismissed

Capt. Gurdeep Kaur Sandhu, a pilot with Air India Express Ltd, tendered her resignation by email on 3 July 2017, invoking the six‑month notice period required under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR). The company accepted the resignation on 2 September 2017, engaged and trained a replacement pilot at considerable co

ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELE SERVICES PROVIDERS & OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA

2014 INSC 29417 April 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) could audit the accounts of private telecom service providers under the Unified Access Services (UAS) licences to verify revenue sharing with the Union. Service providers argued that the CAG’s powers under Article 149 of the Constitut

C.I.T., DELHIversusBHARTI HEXACOM LTD.

2023 INSC 91716 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned Bharti Hexacom Ltd. and other telecom operators who paid a variable annual licence fee to the Department of Telecommunications under the New Telecom Policy of 1999. The issue was whether these payments were capital in nature, requiring amortisation under Section 35ABB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or

M/S TATA SKY LTD.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 25816 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Sky Ltd. operated a Direct‑to‑Home (DTH) broadcasting service under a licence granted by the Central Government. The Madhya Pradesh Government, invoking the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936, issued a notification on 5 May 2008 fixing a 20% entertainment duty on payments for admiss

VODAFONE IDEA CELLULAR LTD.versusAJAY KUMAR AGARWAL

2022 INSC 18916 February 2022Disposed off

Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. filed a consumer complaint alleging over‑charging for mobile services, which the consumer, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, pursued before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The appellant argued that Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which mandates arbitration for disputes concerning te

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 41814 May 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals and writ petitions filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd and other telecom operators seeking renewal or extension of their licences granted under Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The operators argued that the licences created a contractual right to extension and that the Government’s deci

RELIANCE TELECOM LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 125412 January 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined challenges to the 2015 Notice Inviting Application (NIA) for spectrum auction, where petitioners alleged that the minimum bidding requirements, classification of bidders and spectrum‑capping provisions violated Article 14 and created a non‑competitive environment. The Court held that the gove

AMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 38211 May 2011Dismissed

Amar Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 alleging that his telephone conversations were intercepted by the Government of India and the Delhi administration at the behest of a political party, and sought an injunction and damages. The petition relied on annexes that were later shown to be forged and were obtain

ANURADHA BHASINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 3110 January 2020Disposed off

The Court examined the Jammu and Kashmir government's orders that shut down mobile, landline, and internet services and imposed Section 144 restrictions on 4‑8‑2019, which the petitioners claimed violated their fundamental rights to free speech, press, and trade. The petitioners sought production of all orders, a decla

BHARATI TAMANGversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 6988 October 2013Directions issued

The widow of Madan Tamang, a political leader murdered in public, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking quashing of charge‑sheets and a fresh investigation by an independent Special Investigation Team, alleging that the State police, CID and CBI investigations were faulty. The Supreme Court examined the adequa

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEDversusTELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 8086 December 2013Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) could entertain challenges to regulations made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) under Section 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It held that the power conferred on TRAI by Sectio

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusBHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 11545 December 2018Leave granted

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (RJIL) filed an information under the Competition Act, 2002 alleging that the three incumbent dominant operators (Bharti Airtel, Vodafone India and Idea Cellular) and the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) colluded to deny or delay augmentation of Point of Interconnection (POI) cap

LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 2553 March 2022Dismissed

Loop Telecom applied for Unified Access Service Licences (UASL) for 2G spectrum and paid a non‑refundable entry fee of Rs 1454.94 crore. The Supreme Court, in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (CPIL), quashed the 2G licences on the ground that the First‑Come‑First‑Serve policy was arbitrary and un

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 682 February 2012Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the allocation of 2G spectrum licences by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) between September 2007 and March 2008, which were based on Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recommendations to use the 2001 entry fee and a first‑come‑first‑served policy. Petitioners argued that

GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2020 INSC 5721 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and a national trade union challenged two Gujarat State notifications issued under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 that exempted all factories from provisions on working hours, rest intervals and overtime pay during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The petitioners argued that the pandemic did not c

UNION OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 5271 September 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered the Union of India's demand that telecom service providers (TSPs) pay Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues as determined in earlier judgments, while several TSPs were under insolvency proceedings. The Court examined whether spectrum, a natural resource licensed under the Indian Telegraph Act,

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search