Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

54 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

SAJI GEEVARGHESEversusACCOUNTS OFFICER (TELEPHONE REVENUE) & ORS.

2008 INSC 110630 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a telephone subscriber, challenged three telephone bills that he alleged were excessive due to meter reading errors. The dispute was referred to statutory arbitration under Section 78 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, where the arbitrator allowed a modest rebate on only one bill and upheld the others. The appe

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

TATA CELLULARversusUNION OF INDIA

1994 INSC 28326 July 1994Disposed off

The Department of Telecommunications invited tenders for cellular licences in four Indian cities, leading to a two‑stage evaluation and the selection of eight operators. Several rejected bidders challenged the final list before the Delhi High Court, alleging bias (due to a member’s son working for a bidder), arbitrarin

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

UNION OF INDIAversusTATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD.

2007 INSC 85723 August 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India invited tenders for a telecom licence and, after receiving a tender, issued a Letter of Intent to Tata Teleservices, which later failed to fulfil its obligations. The Union claimed damages of Rs 50 crore and set‑off the amount, while Tata claimed Rs 654.25 crore for breach of contract. The Telecom Di

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

IN RE: SANJIV DATTA AND ORSversusIN RE: SANJIV DATTA AND ORS

1995 INSC 27719 April 1995Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a suo moto contempt petition against Deputy Secretary Sanjiv Datta of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, who filed an affidavit in a writ petition concerning a cricket broadcasting dispute that alleged the Court had erred, mocked government policy, and undermined national sovereignty.

DELHI SCIENCE FORUM AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 27519 February 1996Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Central Government’s exercise of power under Section 4(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to grant licences to private companies for establishing and operating telecommunication services, arguing that the privilege was exclusive to the Government and that the procedure, including a capp

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES {PUCL)versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 150918 December 1996Disposed off

The People's Union for Civil Liberties filed a public‑interest writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which permits telephone interception in cases of public emergency or public safety. The petition argued that telephone tapping infringes the right to pr

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusLIVISHA ETC. ETC.

2007 INSC 63818 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) against the High Court’s enhancement of compensation for fruit‑bearing trees cut to lay a 110 kV electric line. The Board had originally determined compensation under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, using a 5% annuity rate, but the H

CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 54217 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Cellular Operators Association of India (appellants) challenged the Government's decision to permit Fixed Service Providers to offer Wireless in Local Loop (WLL) with limited mobility, arguing that the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) failed to consider the level‑playing‑field issue, viola

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

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR.versusBPL MOBILE CELLULAR LTD. & ORS.

2008 INSC 67214 May 2008Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether internal circulars issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) could alter the terms of lease contracts between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. concerning inter‑connection links. The parties had entered into licence agreements that specified rent

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

STATE THROUGH SPECIAL CELL, NEW DELHIversusNAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSHAN GURU AND ORS.

2003 INSC 2909 May 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the Parliament attack of 2001, after which the accused were charged under various statutes including the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). While the trial was pending, the accused sought an interlocutory order from the Special Judge to exclude intercepted telephone conversations as evidence

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

M.D., M/S. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD.versusR. CHELLAPPAN & ORS.

2009 INSC 7538 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry Ltd., a poultry farmer, purchased land and erected sheds while the Power Grid Corporation was surveying a 400 kV transmission line that would pass over the sheds. The company claimed that the high‑voltage lines would harm its birds and sought a realignment or increased tower height. The Madras

K.G. PADMANABHA PRABHUversusKERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

1997 INSC 5207 July 1997Dismissed

K.G. Padmanabha Prabhu owned several parcels of land with trees in Polluttu village. The Kerala State Electricity Board, invoking Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Sections 10 to 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, acquired the trees and laid electric lines across the land. The appellant claimed c

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

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusM/S JAGJIT INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

1999 INSC 2286 May 1999Dismissed

The Union of India appealed a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that set aside a non‑speaking award given by an arbitrator under Section 7‑B of the Telegraph Act, 1885, on the ground that the award lacked reasons. The respondents had challenged the award by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Uni

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

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

2003 INSC 554 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the High Court’s order that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was not liable to Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax on rentals collected from telephone subscribers. The Supreme Court examined whether the DoT qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade T

TATA PRESS LTD.versusMAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 4353 August 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (the Nigam) and the Union of India claimed exclusive rights to publish the list of telephone subscribers under Rule 458 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and sought to restrain Tata Press Ltd. from publishing its "Tata Press Yellow Pages" – a buyers' guide comprising paid advertisement

M/S. RAAG RANG AND ANR.versusTHE GENERAL MANAGER, DELHI TELEPHONES AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3593 April 1997Disposed off

The appellants, M/s Raag Rang and others, claimed they had paid their telephone dues of Rs. 5,370.35 plus reconnection charges, yet faced a threat of disconnection. The General Manager, Delhi Telephones, issued a letter stating that no record of such payment existed in its bonds. The dispute centered on the factual que

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

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1332 March 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the provision of telephone services by telecom operators constitutes a sale of goods, a service, or a composite contract of both, and consequently whether State governments can levy sales tax under Entry 54 of List II. The petitioners argued that the transaction is purely a service, i

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,

GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMversusM. KRISHNAN & ANR.

2009 INSC 11001 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a telecom authority, disconnected a telephone line for non-payment of the bill. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which ordered reconnection and payment of Rs.5,000 compensation with interest. The appellant challenged the forum's jurisdiction via a wr

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusBHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS.

2008 INSC 10011 September 2008Case Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court judgment that had struck down sections 13‑16 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and the words “or under any other Act” in section 21(5) as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court examined whether the State could legislate on intercep

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