Truecaller committed to working with Trai, Meity, DoT on spam issue: CEO

Truecaller CEO Rishit Jhunjhunwala on Tuesday said the company remains committed to working with the government to address the issue of spam in the country.

 

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 added that constructive engagement with the authorities remains central to the company’s approach.

 

“Extending Trai’s jurisdiction will be akin to encroachment on the regulatory framework falling under MeitY’s domain,” the Truecaller CEO said.

   

Jhunjhunwala’s remarks come amid a disagreement between Trai and Truecaller over the tagging of calls made from dedicated number series. Last Friday, the Trai said that no application can block calls originating from the 1600 series, which is used by regulated entities and government agencies to communicate with citizens.

 

Truecaller, however, has maintained that fraudsters misuse numbers beginning with 1600 and 140 to contact people, despite Trai's rules. The company said that around 525,000 users of its caller identification app mark such calls as spam every day.

 

"We respect the role of regulators and support measures that genuinely improve consumer safety. At the same time, 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, would represent an encroachment upon the regulatory framework that falls within MeitY's domain," Jhunjhunwala told PTI.

 

Jhunjhunwala expressed concern that if an amendment like this proceeds without the jurisdictional question being resolved, it would set a far-reaching precedent "one that could expose other IT intermediaries operating in India to regulatory claims from authorities outside Meity's framework".

 

"This, in turn, has potentially serious consequences for legal certainty and investor confidence in India's technology sector," he said.

 

The company said it has been in touch with the concerned authorities and has shared data and insights gathered from millions of users in India.

 

"We believe decisions of this importance should be informed by evidence and by the experience of consumers," he said.

 

Jhunjhunwala said community reporting, network intelligence and regulatory action should work together rather than replace each other. He added 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 emphasised that Truecaller has already complied with TRAI's directions in good faith.

 

"At the same time, we believe consumers benefit when they have access to community-driven information about unwanted calls. Therefore, we will continue to show the 'frequently blocked' tag," he said.

 

He said that continuing to display the tag is "compliant" and "still protects consumers".

 

"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. The whitelisting of a number series, so that it prevents apps from providing user feedback, cannot be a solution," he said.

 

Jhunjhunwala said the dedicated number series were introduced to increase trust, "but unfortunately, some bad actors have found ways to misuse them".

 

"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," he argued.

 

Truecaller said it has formally submitted its views as part of the consultation process and continues to engage with the relevant authorities.

 

"Our preference is always constructive dialogue rather than litigation. We are hopeful that continued engagement and evidence-based discussions can lead to a solution that protects consumers while supporting innovation. Like any responsible company, we will evaluate all available options as the regulatory process evolves, but our focus today remains on collaboration," he said.