"Consultative rule-making strengthens regulatory legitimacy." Discuss using TRAI's regulation-making process as an example.

Consultative rule-making means a regulator publishes draft rules, invites public views and weighs them before notifying the final rules. The TRAI Act, 1997 requires TRAI to act transparently [1]. TRAI's consultation practice shows that a regulator's legitimacy comes from how it makes rules, not only from the law that set it up. The practice also has clear limits.

Draft / Consultation Paper → Comments → Counter-comments → Open House Discussion → Final Regulation

Fig: TRAI's notice-and-comment cycle

How consultation strengthens legitimacy

• Wider participation: TRAI released the draft Fourth Amendment to the Complaint Redressal Regulations, 2012 for comments on 7 May 2026 [2]. It later extended the deadline to 12 June [3], which let more stakeholders take part.
• Open debate: Through counter-comments and an online Open House Discussion, consumer groups and operators could test each other's claims before the rules were finalised [4].
• Better-designed rules: The draft responded to consumers' shift to apps, portals and chatbots [2]. The final rules add 24x7 access, desks for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), and AI only under human oversight [4].
• A continuing voice for consumers: An Oversight Committee that includes consumer organisations, plus satisfaction scores published every quarter [4], keep consumers involved after the rules are notified.
• Fewer disputes: When operators have been heard, they are less likely to resist the rules or challenge them before TDSAT (the tribunal that hears appeals against TRAI) [1].

Limits of consultation

• Being heard is not the same as being heeded: TRAI scrapped the Advisory Committee stage of appeals [4]. Consultation does not oblige the regulator to adopt any stakeholder's view.
• Unequal voices: Operators and industry bodies file detailed submissions. Consumer organisations are weak in many States, and ordinary subscribers rarely take part.
• Delay: TRAI sought views on a Telecom Ombudsman in 2016 [5]. A decade later, no ombudsman has been set up [6].
• Limited mandate: The TRAI Act does not empower TRAI to settle individual complaints [6]. However good the consultation, it cannot give a user a neutral forum.

Consultation gives TRAI's rules wider participation, better design and buy-in from those it regulates, but its value depends on whose voices count. TRAI could publish its reasons for accepting or rejecting comments, fund consumer groups so they can take part, and set deadlines for acting on proposals. These steps would give real effect to the transparency the TRAI Act requires and advance SDG 16.6 (effective, accountable and transparent institutions).