Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

61 judgments · newest first · showing 1–61

TARUN VISHWANATH SHENAIversusTHR UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Allowed

The High Court considered bail applications filed by Amit Suresh Dube and Tarun Vishwanath Shenai, who were alleged to have operated an illegal call centre that impersonated U.S. authorities to defraud U.S. citizens, launder money through hawala and cryptocurrency, and violate multiple statutes. The …

AMIT SURESH DUBEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The High Court considered bail applications filed by Amit Suresh Dube and Tarun Vishwanath Shenai, who were alleged to have operated an illegal call centre that impersonated U.S. authorities to defraud U.S. citizens, launder money through hawala and cryptocurrency, and violate multiple statutes. The …

BHOGILAL SHANTILAL PATELversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Bhogilal Shantilal Patel filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging the laying of a transmission line and seeking compensation. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner admitted that the transmission line had already been laid and requested that the petition be …

INDUS TOWERS LIMITEDversusNAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Disposed Off

Indus Towers Limited, a telecom infrastructure company, obtained permission from Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to install a cellular tower in 2008. After complaints from local residents, the corporation issued a notice and the Ward Officer attempted to dismantle the equipment, prompting the …

SOLANKI TALASHIBHAI GANDABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The petitioners, owners of agricultural land in Sanand Taluka, challenged the laying of a 66 kV transmission line by the state transmission utility, alleging that the route was arbitrary, caused undue hardship and violated the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Telegraph Act, 1885. They sought a mandamus …

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 599Disposed 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 …

C.I.T., DELHIversusBHARTI HEXACOM LTD.

2023 INSC 917Appeal(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 …

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

2022 INSC 996Case 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 …

LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2022 INSC 255Dismissed

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 …

VODAFONE IDEA CELLULAR LTD.versusAJAY KUMAR AGARWAL

2022 INSC 189Disposed 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 …

GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2020 INSC 572Appeal(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 …

ANURADHA BHASINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 31Disposed 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 …

G H CENTURY RAYON LIMITEDversusIVP LIMITED AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 1288Appeal(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 …

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

2019 INSC 946Dismissed

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 …

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusANWAR OSMAN SUMBHANIYA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 280Dismissed

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 …

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusBHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 1154Leave 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 …

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

2017 INSC 801Reference 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 …

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

2017 INSC 1254Dismissed

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 …

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEDversusVODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED

2016 INSC 906Disposed 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 …

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 418Dismissed

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 …

ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELE SERVICES PROVIDERS & OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA

2014 INSC 294Disposed 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 …

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEDversusTELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 808Reference 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 …

BHARATI TAMANGversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 698Directions 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 …

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

2013 INSC 258Appeal(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 …

AVISHEK GOENKAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2012 INSC 188Case 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 …

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 68Case 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. …

AMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 382Dismissed

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 …

B.S.N.LversusRELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD.

2010 INSC 827Appeal(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 …

GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMversusM. KRISHNAN & ANR.

2009 INSC 1100Appeal(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 …

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

2009 INSC 753Appeal(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 …

SAJI GEEVARGHESEversusACCOUNTS OFFICER (TELEPHONE REVENUE) & ORS.

2008 INSC 1106Appeal(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 …

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusBHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & ORS.

2008 INSC 1001Case 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 …

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

2008 INSC 672Dismissed

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 …

UNION OF INDIAversusTATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LTD.

2007 INSC 857Appeal(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 …

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusLIVISHA ETC. ETC.

2007 INSC 638Appeal(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% …

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

2006 INSC 133Disposed 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 …

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

2003 INSC 290Appeal(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 …

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

2003 INSC 55Appeal(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 …

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

2002 INSC 542Appeal(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 …

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

1999 INSC 228Dismissed

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 …

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

1997 INSC 520Dismissed

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 …

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

1997 INSC 359Disposed 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 …

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

1996 INSC 1509Disposed 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 …

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

1996 INSC 275Dismissed

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 …

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

1995 INSC 435Appeal(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 …

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

1995 INSC 277Disposed 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 …

TATA CELLULARversusUNION OF INDIA

1994 INSC 283Disposed 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 …