- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Directs TRAI To Enforce rules Checking SMS Fraud Else Face Legal Action
Delhi High Court Directs TRAI To Enforce rules Checking SMS Fraud Else Face Legal Action On 4 February 2021, a two-member bench of the Delhi High Court (HC) comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh stated loose implementation of the Telecom Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulation, 2018 (TCCCPR) could result in legal action while hearing the writ appeal...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court Directs TRAI To Enforce rules Checking SMS Fraud Else Face Legal Action
On 4 February 2021, a two-member bench of the Delhi High Court (HC) comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh stated loose implementation of the Telecom Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulation, 2018 (TCCCPR) could result in legal action while hearing the writ appeal filed by Paytm
The HC directed the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), to ensure that telecom companies strictly enforce rules to check the use of fake SMS headers by fraudsters to cheat customers.
The order of the HC has been welcomed by the digital payments industry, as due to improper supervision leads to fake messages by scammers under duplicate headers. SMS headers are unique IDs via which commercial messages are sent to mobile users.
The HC directed all companies that send promotional and business SMS need to register their content and headers on a blockchain-based platform managed by telcos. This is geared towards curbing spam, comprising sham messages delivered without user approval or registration.
However, the HC did not instruct the opposite party including the telecom operators, to pay the damages sought by Paytm amounting to Rs. 100 crore for reputational loss due to payment frauds owing to lack of compliance with the TCCCPR rules.
A Paytm spokesperson said that the recent order of the HC is a 'big victory'. The digital payments major had filed a case against TRAI and telcos comprising Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea, and Reliance Jio.
The spokesperson further stated that "The purpose of the petition was to protect the digital payments ecosystem and customers and we don't feel the need to press for any further compensation. In case we see any delays in the implementation, we will come back and fight again in the Court."