On 5 December 2018, the Supreme Court settled the boundary between TRAI and the CCI in the Jio interconnection dispute. It held that where a grievance is rooted in the telecom licensing framework, TRAI — the specialised regulator — must first determine the jurisdictional facts before the CCI can act. A digest of the sequencing doctrine, the verbatim reasoning, and why the two regimes are complementary rather than exclusionary.
In February 2024, a two-judge bench held that cellular service providers need not deduct TDS under Section 194-H on the margin retained by distributors, settling a five-High-Court split on the agent-versus-distributor distinction.
On 11 May 2016, a two-judge bench struck down TRAI's call-drop compensation regulation as ultra vires and manifestly arbitrary under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) — engaging both Wednesbury manifest-arbitrariness and the doctrine of proportionality to review a regulator's subordinate legislation.
On 11 May 2020, the Supreme Court applied the Anuradha Bhasin framework to J&K's 4G blackout, constituting a Special Committee and holding that restrictions must be calibrated territorially and temporally to what is actually necessary.
Valkya Editorial··8 min
TribunalTelecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal
TDSAT held the 0.5% spectrum-sharing surcharge applies only to the shared band's SUC rate, not the operator's weighted-average rate, and quashed DoT's demands.
In February 2026, the Supreme Court held that telecom spectrum is a sovereign resource held in public trust and cannot be subjected to IBC proceedings or the section 14 moratorium.
On 29 March 2023 a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, delivered the country's first authoritative appellate framework on standard-essential patents and FRAND licensing. The judgment by Justices Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee dismissed Intex's appeal, allowed Ericsson's cross-appeal, doubled the royalty security ordered by the Single Judge, held that injunctions and pro-tem royalty deposits are available to SEP holders against unwilling licensees, ruled that parallel CCI proceedings do not oust Patent Act jurisdiction, and established the 'willing licensee' inquiry as the central test in Indian SEP litigation. A close reading of the Bench's reasoning, the two-way street it builds between SEP holders and implementers, and the bespoke Indian remedy of pro-tem security that now travels through Nokia v. OPPO, Ericsson v. Lava and the wider Delhi SEP docket.