The Authority has been directed to keep its order hiking telephone rentals on hold until the government assesses the matter. Speaking to mediapersons here today, TRAI chairman Justice S S Sodhi questioned the clause of the TRAI Act under which the government held its order in ``abeyance''.

The directive, the chairman said, had undermined TRAI's credibility at a time when the government's policy involves augmenting its resources for building infrastructure through private investment.

Quoting the TRAI Act of 1997, Justice S S Sodhi said that Section 25 of the TRAI Act -- which gives the government power to issue policy directives to the Authority -- clearly indicates two provisions under which it can do so.

First, if it is ``in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of thestate, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality.''

The second sub-section of Clause 25 states that the government may issue written directions on questions of policy from time to time ``provided that the Authority, as far as possible, be given an opportunity to express its views before any directions are given under this sub-section.''

A clarification has been sought from the Government, Justice Sodhi said. He also refuted the allegation that the TRAI had spurned the suggestions of the Standing Committee, the Consultative Committee and the government. Its original consultation paper, he claimed, had recommended higher rentals and a more drastic cut in STD and ISD rates, which were watered down considerably in the final order.

The Authority alleged that the entire exercise was being challenged because the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) had been running ``a monopoly operation'' for so long that it did not want to see any decline in its profits.

The TRAI's letterto the Telecom Secretary yesterday said that related policy aspects, namely low user concerns and differential treatment to rural and urban subscribers, have been covered by the order, based on consultations with the Members of Parliament and the DoT.

Justice Sodhi said he did not agree that the tariffs were anti-poor. The Authority, he said, had based its order on data, 90 per cent of which had been supplied by DoT.

As for the TRAI's next course of action, the chairman said that ``the ball is now in the Government's court.''

It was Parliament that gave the Authority the powers to determine the tariffs, he pointed out. ``It is now the government which is breaking the law.''