The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has officially responded to Truecaller's tagging practices, with a senior regulatory official stating that 'showing tags such as spam or frequently blocked within the designated number series - even where it is claimed to be community-reported - creates unwarranted suspicion for others around legitimate commercial communications'. According to Business Standard, the regulator believes that 'such tagging is not advisable' as it tends to misguide and confuse telecom consumers, creating unwarranted suspicion about calls from 1600 and 140 categories that otherwise fall under the regulated framework. Instead, TRAI believes that Truecaller should display a label informing users that they can 'exercise their choice' to block unwanted communication from the 140 series through TRAI's official Do Not Disturb (DND) preference management app. The official emphasized that 'the solution lies in creating further awareness and outreach around the DND, to educate people about the choices they have'. This response comes after TRAI recently clarified its position on the 1600 and 140 number series, following a public dispute with Truecaller's CEO.
Truecaller CEO Rishit Jhunjhunwala announced on Tuesday that the company remains committed to working with the government to address spam issues in India. Speaking to news agency PTI, Jhunjhunwala said Truecaller is prepared to collaborate with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to find solutions to spam calls and messages. He emphasized that constructive engagement with authorities remains central to the company's approach and expressed hope that 'continued engagement and evidence-based discussions can lead to a solution that protects consumers while supporting innovation'. The company has formally submitted its views as part of the consultation process and continues to engage with relevant authorities. As per PTI, Jhunjhunwala said the company's 'preference is always constructive dialogue rather than litigation' and noted that 'like any responsible company, we will evaluate all available options as the regulatory process evolves, but our focus today remains on collaboration'.
Jhunjhunwala expressed concerns about extending Trai's jurisdiction, stating that 'extending Trai's jurisdiction will be akin to encroachment on the regulatory framework falling under MeitY's domain'. As reported by PTI, he warned that if an amendment proceeds without resolving jurisdictional questions, it could set a far-reaching precedent that could expose other IT intermediaries to regulatory claims from authorities outside MeitY's framework. He argued this could have 'serious consequences for legal certainty and investor confidence in India's technology sector'. The CEO emphasized that 'we respect the role of regulators and support measures that genuinely improve consumer safety' but expressed concern about 'extending TRAI's jurisdiction to compel an IT intermediary to dictate what information it presents to users, and to mandate the sharing of proprietary data with a telecom-operated registry'. The issue has gained significance as TRAI has also sought to be designated as an 'authorised agency' under the IT Act, which would enable it to take action against call management applications, with the proposal currently being examined by MeitY.
The latest development comes after TRAI recently clarified its position on the 1600 and 140 number series, following a public dispute with Truecaller's CEO. As reported by multiple sources, TRAI has now spelled out exactly why these rules exist, stating that these two number series stay untouched by app-level spam filtering, regardless of how users individually experience the calls coming from them. This clarification comes right after TRAI sought greater powers from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which would let TRAI take action against call management apps and similar platforms for wrongfully tagging 140 and 1600 series numbers as spam. The move didn't sit well with Truecaller, with Jhunjhunwala pushing back publicly, arguing that TRAI's own earlier mandate already restricts tech firms from tagging these numbers in the first place. He also revealed that back in late 2025, TRAI had specifically asked Truecaller not to display community-reported spam information against numbers from these two series, a move he says led to a noticeable rise in these calls simply going unanswered by users. According to Business Standard, TRAI has mandated the use of 1600 series numbers for service and transaction calls by regulated banking, financial services and insurance or BFSI entities, and government-to-citizen communications, while the 140 series numbers are for promotional calls by registered entities across sectors.
Jhunjhunwala advocated for a balanced approach combining community reporting, network intelligence, and regulatory action. As reported by PTI, he emphasized that community reporting, network intelligence and regulatory action should work together rather than replace each other. The CEO stated that the 'ideal outcome would allow regulators to act quickly against bad actors while ensuring that consumers continue to receive timely warnings about potentially unwanted calls'. He noted that Truecaller has already complied with TRAI's directions in good faith and will continue to show the 'frequently blocked' tag, which he described as 'compliant and still protects consumers'. He explained that 'it is important to note that this tag does not get attached to a number easily. It only happens to specific numbers, when lakhs of consumers start reporting those numbers and when our algorithms make sense of the blocks, reports and calling patterns'. He argued that 'the whitelisting of a number series, so that it prevents apps from providing user feedback, cannot be a solution' and that 'when millions of users report those calls as unwanted or suspicious, preventing those signals from being reflected back to consumers reduces transparency rather than increasing it'. Reiterating that Truecaller shares TRAI's objective of tackling spam, Jhunjhunwala argued that 'restricting consumer information is not the same as reducing spam'.
Truecaller has formally submitted its views as part of the consultation process and continues to engage with relevant authorities. According to PTI, the company said it has been in touch with concerned authorities and has shared user data. Jhunjhunwala emphasized that 'our preference is always constructive dialogue rather than litigation' and expressed hope that 'continued engagement and evidence-based discussions can lead to a solution that protects consumers while supporting innovation'. He noted that the company will evaluate all available options as the regulatory process evolves, with 'focus today remaining on collaboration'. The company's stance comes amid a disagreement between Trai and Truecaller over the tagging of calls made from dedicated number series, with Trai stating that 'no application can block calls originating from the 1600 series' used by regulated entities and government agencies. The company's immediate priority remains engagement with regulators, with Jhunjhunwala saying 'we have already shared our views through the consultation process and remain committed to working with TRAI, MeitY, DoT and other stakeholders to find a solution that strengthens consumer protection without reducing transparency for users'.
