Tag: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal

  • TRAI: HC asks Idea, DoT to file affidavit on plea

    TRAI: HC asks Idea, DoT to file affidavit on plea

    MUMBAI: Idea Cellular Ltd. has moved the Delhi High Court against TRAI’s recommendation to impose a penalty of Rs 950 crore for allegedly not providing interconnection to Reliance Jio (RJIO), even as Department of Telecommunications (DoT) said the plea was premature. 

    The DoT claimed before a bench of the justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and chief justice G Rohini that Idea’s petition was not maintainable as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had only given a recommendation, PTI reported.

    Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for DoT, opposed maintainability of the plea. Once DoT takes a decision, he said, it could become an appealable order.

    The bench, thereafter, issued notice to TRAI and DoT and asked them to file affidavits on the issue of maintainability of Idea’s plea before the next date of hearing on 21 February.

    Idea, in its request, claimed that it complied with the requirements of RJio for points of interconnections (PoIs). As of 19 January 2016, it allocated 19,175 PoIs to RJio and contended that congestion and call failures were a consequence of RJio’s “gross underestimation” of the traffic, volume, and duration of calls on its network due to its free offers.

    In its plea, Idea has also contended that there was inconsistency between TRAI’s Interconnection Regulations and Quality of Service Regulations.

    Earlier, terming it as “premature”, the central government opposed a plea by the telecom major Vodafone Mobile Services challenging TRAI’s recommendation to impose Rs 1,050 crore penalty for not providing interconnectivity to Reliance Jio.

    The government rejected the plea by Vodafone, which operates in 21 circles, against a penalty of Rs 50 crore per telecom circle recommended by TRAI. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had suggested the penalty on grounds that Vodafone had violated terms and conditions relating to points of interconnection among service providers.

    Also Read:  Respond to Vodafone’s TRAI challenge in two weeks, govt directed

  • TRAI: HC asks Idea, DoT to file affidavit on plea

    TRAI: HC asks Idea, DoT to file affidavit on plea

    MUMBAI: Idea Cellular Ltd. has moved the Delhi High Court against TRAI’s recommendation to impose a penalty of Rs 950 crore for allegedly not providing interconnection to Reliance Jio (RJIO), even as Department of Telecommunications (DoT) said the plea was premature. 

    The DoT claimed before a bench of the justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and chief justice G Rohini that Idea’s petition was not maintainable as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had only given a recommendation, PTI reported.

    Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for DoT, opposed maintainability of the plea. Once DoT takes a decision, he said, it could become an appealable order.

    The bench, thereafter, issued notice to TRAI and DoT and asked them to file affidavits on the issue of maintainability of Idea’s plea before the next date of hearing on 21 February.

    Idea, in its request, claimed that it complied with the requirements of RJio for points of interconnections (PoIs). As of 19 January 2016, it allocated 19,175 PoIs to RJio and contended that congestion and call failures were a consequence of RJio’s “gross underestimation” of the traffic, volume, and duration of calls on its network due to its free offers.

    In its plea, Idea has also contended that there was inconsistency between TRAI’s Interconnection Regulations and Quality of Service Regulations.

    Earlier, terming it as “premature”, the central government opposed a plea by the telecom major Vodafone Mobile Services challenging TRAI’s recommendation to impose Rs 1,050 crore penalty for not providing interconnectivity to Reliance Jio.

    The government rejected the plea by Vodafone, which operates in 21 circles, against a penalty of Rs 50 crore per telecom circle recommended by TRAI. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India had suggested the penalty on grounds that Vodafone had violated terms and conditions relating to points of interconnection among service providers.

    Also Read:  Respond to Vodafone’s TRAI challenge in two weeks, govt directed

  • ‘Don’t WhatsApp users’ data to FB’

    ‘Don’t WhatsApp users’ data to FB’

    MUMBAI: WhatsApp’s revised privacy policy has been rejected by the Delhi High Court on Friday. With a few safeguards, the online messaging platform’s modified policy was originally scheduled to come into effect on 25 September and proposed to share information of users with the parent company Facebook and affiliate entities.

    This order came in response to a public interest litigation filed by the Over-The-Top (OTT) platform users against changes in the messaging service’s policy that took effect on 25 August. The order was given by the division bench of justices G Rohini and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal. WhatsApp has been directed not to share with Facebook information of users who would deactivate their accounts as well as the existing users up to September 25 to protect their interest.

    The bench said that, keeping in view that the issue relating to the existence of an individual’s right of privacy as a distinct basis of a cause of action is yet to be decided by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, it was considering it appropriate to issue the said directions. WhatsApp had earlier informed the court that, when a user account was deleted, the information of that person was no longer retained on its servers.

    The platform has been directed to erase all information, data and details of users who choose to delete their accounts. The bench has also prohibited the messaging service from sharing any data or information acquired from users who decide to remain post the date mentioned.

    The aggrieved users had also sought for directions to be issued to the Centre and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to consider the issues regarding the functioning of applications like WhatsApp and take an appropriate decision as to whether it is feasible to bring the same under the statutory regulatory framework.

  • ‘Don’t WhatsApp users’ data to FB’

    ‘Don’t WhatsApp users’ data to FB’

    MUMBAI: WhatsApp’s revised privacy policy has been rejected by the Delhi High Court on Friday. With a few safeguards, the online messaging platform’s modified policy was originally scheduled to come into effect on 25 September and proposed to share information of users with the parent company Facebook and affiliate entities.

    This order came in response to a public interest litigation filed by the Over-The-Top (OTT) platform users against changes in the messaging service’s policy that took effect on 25 August. The order was given by the division bench of justices G Rohini and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal. WhatsApp has been directed not to share with Facebook information of users who would deactivate their accounts as well as the existing users up to September 25 to protect their interest.

    The bench said that, keeping in view that the issue relating to the existence of an individual’s right of privacy as a distinct basis of a cause of action is yet to be decided by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, it was considering it appropriate to issue the said directions. WhatsApp had earlier informed the court that, when a user account was deleted, the information of that person was no longer retained on its servers.

    The platform has been directed to erase all information, data and details of users who choose to delete their accounts. The bench has also prohibited the messaging service from sharing any data or information acquired from users who decide to remain post the date mentioned.

    The aggrieved users had also sought for directions to be issued to the Centre and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to consider the issues regarding the functioning of applications like WhatsApp and take an appropriate decision as to whether it is feasible to bring the same under the statutory regulatory framework.