The Context
The lineage is worth recalling. The first attempt was the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communications Regulations of 2007, followed by the 2010 Customer Preference Regulations (which later carried sixteen amendments), and then the current TCCCPR, 2018, itself amended in December 2018 and again in February 2025. The third amendment now on the table builds on that 2018 base.
TRAI's stated trigger is twofold: stakeholder feedback gathered over years, and the recent rollout of AI-based UCC detection by the three major access providers. Stakeholders were invited to file comments by 12 April 2026 and counter-comments by 27 April 2026, in TRAI's standard four-column format (regulation number, sub-regulation, proposed modification, and justification).
What the Draft Actually Proposes
Several proposals stand out, and together they signal a shift in regulatory philosophy: away from a complaint-driven, penalty-on-the-intermediary model, and toward proactive, technology-led, price-based deterrence.
A definition for A2P calls
The draft inserts a definition of an "Application-to-Person" (A2P) call: a voice call initiated by an application or automated platform without direct human dialling, including autodialling, robocalls, and pre-recorded or artificial-voice technologies. This is the conceptual anchor for much of what follows.
Pre-declaration of A2P calling
Because networks cannot reliably tell a human-dialled call from an automated one, the draft requires bulk callers to pre-declare their use of A2P calling to the Originating Access Provider (OAP). Fail to declare, and the calls are treated as UCC, with regulatory action to follow.
A termination charge on A2P voice
Perhaps the most consequential proposal: a Terminating Access Provider (TAP) may charge the OAP up to ₹0.05 (five paise) per minute for A2P calls. The logic mirrors the existing five-paise-per-SMS deterrent. Notably, the draft proposes carve-outs for calls by or on behalf of the Central or State Governments, constitutional bodies, the Authority and its authorised agencies, as well as calls made using the designated commercial number series.
Institutionalising AI/ML detection
Building on a TRAI Direction of 27 February 2026, the draft formalises an AI/ML-based "UCC_Detect" system. A TAP would flag a sender's CLI as a "Suspected UCC CLI" and share it with the OAP over the DLT platform within two hours; the OAP would then notify the sender. Crucially, where AI has flagged a sender's CLI in the last ten days, the complaint threshold for action drops from five complaints to three from unique recipients, corroborating algorithmic intelligence with human complaints to act faster while limiting false positives.
A tighter consent regime
The definition of "Explicit Consent" is recast around consent that is either verified directly from the recipient or obtained through verifiable means and registered. It is supported by a Consent Registration Function with OTP authentication, revocation handling, and a ninety-day cooling-off period before re-acquisition.
Reining in call-management apps
The draft prohibits call-management applications from blanket-tagging or blocking calls from designated commercial series (such as 140 and 1600) as spam, and requires such apps to route UCC reports to the access providers' DND registry.
Graduated financial disincentives and an appellate path
The draft sets out tiered financial disincentives for breaches of the Codes of Practice (capped at ₹10 lakh), penalties for header and template registration failures, and a representation mechanism for senders and telemarketers to contest action taken against them.
| Proposal | What it means |
|---|---|
| A2P voice termination charge | Up to ₹0.05/min payable by the originating to the terminating provider |
| Codes of Practice breach | Capped at ₹10 lakh, applied in graduated tiers |
| AI-flagged complaint threshold | Action at 3 complaints (down from 5) within ten days of an AI flag |
| Consent cooling-off | 90 days before a withdrawn consent can be re-acquired |
Where the Industry Stands
The responses reveal less a debate about whether to act than about how, and on whom the burden should fall.
"Five paise is too little"
The headline disagreement is over the deterrent charge. Several major operators argue that five paise per minute will simply be absorbed into the business, as happened with SMS, and push for at least fifty paise per minute, with at least one also seeking a per-attempt charge to catch very short, high-volume spam calls. The supporting data is striking: a large share of spam calls last under ten seconds, which makes per-minute pricing a weak deterrent on its own and strengthens the case for a charge levied on each call attempt.
"No exemptions, they invite bypass"
Several operators oppose carving out the 140/1600 series or any sector. Their concern is consistent: any sub-categorisation or exemption becomes an arbitrage route, with senders mixing use-cases to dodge the charge, exactly the pattern TRAI had to close on the SMS side by making charges uniform.
"Attack the source, not the intermediary"
Several operators and an industry body press for the problem to be addressed at the point of interconnection, with A2P traffic carved out of the mandatory P2P interconnection regime and routed through dedicated A2P points of interconnection. The industry body goes further, calling for a complete revamp in which Principal Entities and licensed Telemarketers, not access providers (who are mere intermediaries with no control over content), bear primary responsibility and any financial penalty. Others echo this, arguing that financial disincentives should be anchored at enterprise onboarding and header/template registration rather than on OAPs.
"Bring OTT and third-party apps into the net"
A recurring theme is regulatory arbitrage across platforms. Multiple operators and the industry body note that as the licensed SMS and voice channels are tightened, spam and fraud migrate to unregulated OTT messaging, IP messages, and third-party apps that face no equivalent obligations. They invoke "functional equivalence": services performing the same role should face comparable, technology-neutral rules.
A jurisdictional flag
One industry body raises a pointed legal objection: TRAI lacks adjudicatory power under the TRAI Act, and under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, appeals lie with a DoT-appointed adjudicating officer, making certain appeal provisions in the draft, in its view, ultra vires.
The dissenting voice
Not everyone wants a heavier hand, and this perspective deserves weight. One stakeholder urges TRAI to delete the termination charge altogether, arguing that UCC is already comprehensively governed through DLT-based scrubbing, consent management, header and template verification, AI/ML detection, and existing penal provisions, so a fresh pricing-based layer is neither necessary nor appropriate. The same stakeholder argues against a uniform thirty-day implementation in favour of a phased rollout decided in consultation with service providers, given the regulatory, technical, and operational complexity of the changes. It also flags the operational cost of storing complaint-resolution "supporting documents", proposing this be limited to essential metadata or summary records, and contends that the duty to declare a call's commercial nature should sit with the Sender or Principal Entity, not the access provider, which has no visibility into intent at the originating stage.
The responses reveal less a debate about whether to act than about how, and on whom the burden should fall.
What to Watch
The amendment crystallises three tensions that will shape the final regulations:
- Price as deterrent: whether TRAI holds at five paise or moves toward the industry's fifty-paise demand, and whether it adds a per-attempt charge.
- Liability allocation: whether the framework keeps leaning on access providers or shifts decisively toward Principal Entities and telemarketers, potentially via licensing.
- Scope: whether TRAI signals any intent to extend obligations beyond the licensed telecom ecosystem to OTT and third-party platforms, or leaves that gap for another day.
For enterprises that rely on legitimate A2P communication, the practical takeaways are immediate: prepare for mandatory pre-declaration of A2P calling, expect AI-driven flagging to trigger action at a lower complaint threshold, and budget for a deterrent charge whose final quantum is still very much in play. The shift toward licensed-entity accountability also means header, template, and consent hygiene will matter more than ever.
The direction of travel is clear; the price tag, and who pays it, is not.
This article summarises the publicly filed positions of stakeholders in TRAI's consultation and is intended as general information, not legal advice. Figures and provisions reflect the draft as issued on 13 March 2026 and may change in the final regulations.
