Reconciling their interests as also of the telecom set-up of the government (MTNL and DoT) in a competitive environment is the raison d'etre of Trai. Its task is by no means easy. The government wears two hats. It licenses telecom operators and stipulates the terms and conditions of licensing; it is also a service-provider competiting with new entrants in basic and new services. It is difficultto assume that the government will not use one role to promote the other in support of its monopolistic sway.

Consider, for example, the inter-connectivity problems raised by the dominant government network against new private operators. Or take MTNL's decision to enter a new line (cellular services) well before new private operators have reached break-even point.

The implicit premise on which they had bid for licences was that there would be only two operators per circle. Now in Mumbai and Delhi, they are confronted with the giant MTNL. This is not to say that MTNL or any new private operator should be barred for all time. But the need for and the timing of new entrants surely requires independent evaluation. This is surely in Trai's domain.

Its advice to the government in this regard should be binding. But the high court of Delhi has ruled otherwise, since there ``is no ambiguity or doubt so far as the powers of the government to grant licence under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act (of 1885) areconcerned'', nor does the statute (Trai Act of 1997) indicate that the power of the government to grant licence is ``subject to (Trai's) recommendations''. Legal constraints have rendered Trai toothless and the telecom scenario murky. If telecom development is to be furthered through liberalisation, Trai must be given a legal say in licensing. But this is unlikely, judging by the jubilation of the minister of state for telecom over the legal battering taken by Trai.