TDSAT sets aside TRAI fine on GTPL, calls 100% QoS benchmark unrealistic

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has quashed a ₹1 lakh financial disincentive imposed on GTPL Broadband Pvt Ltd by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), ruling that the penalty was disproportionate and failed to account for the extraordinary disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

In its order pronounced on March 25, 2026, the tribunal allowed GTPL’s appeal and set aside TRAI’s June 20, 2023 order, which had reiterated an earlier directive to penalise the company for failing to meet a Quality of Service (QoS) benchmark during the quarter ending December 2020.

Penalty over marginal shortfall

The dispute centred on GTPL’s inability to fully meet the ‘service provisioning/activation time’ benchmark under TRAI’s QoS regulations. While the benchmark required 100% of broadband connections to be provided within 15 working days, GTPL achieved 99.7% compliance—falling short by just 0.3%.

Despite the marginal gap, TRAI imposed the maximum permissible financial disincentive of ₹1 lakh, citing the company’s failure to submit revised performance data segregating Covid-affected and non-Covid periods.

GTPL challenged the order, arguing that such segregation was impractical during a period when the pandemic had impacted the entire country, with lockdowns, containment zones and mobility restrictions varying across regions.

Covid disruptions cannot be ignored

The tribunal acknowledged that the pandemic created unprecedented operational challenges for telecom service providers, including restricted access to customer premises, manpower shortages and a surge in demand due to work-from-home trends.

It noted that broadband installation teams were often unable to enter buildings due to quarantine rules or local restrictions, making it difficult to achieve full compliance with service timelines.

“TDSAT found merit in the argument that such constraints rendered certain cases ‘technically non-feasible’, and should have been treated accordingly while assessing compliance,” the order observed.

100% benchmark termed ‘unrealistic’

In a significant observation, the tribunal questioned the practicality of prescribing a 100% benchmark for service delivery.

It pointed out that even critical infrastructure sectors such as cloud services, power grids and emergency systems operate with service level agreements (SLAs) below 100%, typically ranging between 99% and 99.99%.

“Mandating absolute compliance leaves no margin for unforeseen disruptions, including force majeure events like a pandemic,” the tribunal noted, adding that such benchmarks are inherently impractical in real-world conditions.

Inconsistent regulatory approach

TDSAT also flagged inconsistency in TRAI’s approach. While the regulator had refrained from imposing penalties for the quarters ending June 2020, September 2020 and March 2021 due to Covid-related disruptions, it chose to penalise GTPL for the intervening December 2020 quarter.

The tribunal held that the same leniency should have been extended uniformly, especially since the pandemic’s impact remained pervasive throughout the period.

Penalty disproportionate to violation

A key aspect of the ruling was the tribunal’s criticism of TRAI’s decision to impose the maximum penalty despite near-total compliance.

It emphasised that the regulation allows for a graded penalty—ranging from ₹1 to ₹1 lakh—and requires the regulator to exercise discretion based on the severity of non-compliance.

“Imposing the ceiling amount for a mere 0.3% shortfall defeats the intent of proportionality,” the tribunal noted, adding that such an approach undermines the rationale behind having a penalty range.

Relief for industry

The ruling is welcomed by internet service providers, as it underscores the need for regulatory flexibility during extraordinary circumstances and calls for more realistic benchmarking standards.

The tribunal also acknowledged the efforts of GTPL’s technical teams in maintaining high service levels during the pandemic, noting that achieving 99.7% compliance under such conditions was commendable.

The judgment could have broader implications for how QoS norms are interpreted and enforced, particularly in scenarios involving force majeure events and systemic disruptions.