Law Updates

Subject

Summary: The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), under the Ministry of Communications, has brought Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 into force from 21 August 2026. The change has been made through Notification S.O. 4616(E). The Central Government issued the notification using its powers under Section 1(3) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The Gazette clearly appoints 21 August 2026 as the date on which Section 3(7) becomes operational. That sounds straightforward, but there is an important distinction. S.O. 4616(E) is mainly a commencement notification. It does not contain a complete telecom KYC process, prescribe a new application form, or create a separate biometric licence. What it does is activate the statutory provision dealing with identification of users through verifiable biometric-based identification. The detailed position has to be understood by reading Section 3(7) together with the applicable User Identification Rules and DoT directions. For telecom operators, the change deserves attention because user identification is now tied directly to the framework of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Businesses holding corporate telecom connections also need to understand their role, particularly where individual employees or other persons are using connections issued in the name of an organisation. Notification at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Ministry Ministry of Communications Department Department of Telecommunications Notification Number S.O. 4616(E) Notification Date 21 August 2026 Effective Date 21 August 2026 Governing Law Telecommunications Act, 2023 Power Used Section 1(3) Provision Brought into Force Section 3(7) Main Subject User identification through prescribed verifiable biometric-based identification Direct Compliance Procedure in S.O. 4616(E) Not specified Separate Application Form Not specified Separate Government Fee Not specified Separate Registration Not created by this notification Nature of Notification Commencement notification There is no gap between the date of this notification and the commencement date mentioned in it. Section 3(7) became effective on 21 August 2026 itself. What Does Section 3(7) Actually Say? Section 3(7) is fairly short, but its wording matters. Under the provision, an authorised entity providing a telecommunication service notified by the Central Government must identify the person receiving that service through a prescribed form of verifiable biometric-based identification. There are three parts to understand here. First, the provision places the responsibility on an authorised entity providing the relevant telecommunication service. Second, the provision refers to telecommunication services notified by the Central Government. This means the existence of Section 3(7) alone should not be read as proof that every type of telecom service is covered in the same manner. Third, Section 3(7) says that the biometric-based identification will operate as may be prescribed. In legal terms, that means the Act creates the requirement, while more detailed rules are needed to explain how the system operates. Section 56 of the Telecommunications Act also specifically gives the Central Government rule-making power regarding the verifiable biometric-based identification to be used under Section 3(7). That is why the Gazette notification cannot be read on its own. Why Does 21 August 2026 Matter? The Telecommunications Act was enacted earlier, but individual provisions of a law do not always become operational on the same date. Section 1(3) allows the Central Government to appoint commencement dates for provisions of the Act. S.O. 4616(E) uses that power specifically for Section 3(7). In practical terms, the position is: Stage What It Means Telecommunications Act, 2023 enacted Parliament created the legal framework Section 3(7) included in the Act Parliament created the statutory basis for biometric user identification. S.O. 4616(E) issued Government formally commenced Section 3(7) 21 August 2026 Section 3(7) became legally operational User Identification Rules and DoT instructions Detailed implementation has to be understood from these instruments This distinction matters because describing S.O. 4616(E) itself as a fresh "biometric KYC rule" would not be legally precise. The notification activates the section. It does not reproduce the entire operating framework. How Does the Wider User Identification Framework Fit In? DoT's Telecom e-Service Portal now specifically refers to the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 and states that the Rules have been made live on the portal. DoT has also published separate instructions relating to the implementation of the User Identification Rules. The Department's official resources page lists both the User Identification instructions and a consolidated list of earlier identification/KYC notifications. This creates a layered framework. The Telecommunications Act, 2023 provides the statutory basis. Section 3(7) creates the requirement for prescribed verifiable biometric-based identification for notified services. S.O. 4616(E) brings that provision into force. The User Identification Rules, 2026 provide a more detailed regulatory structure. Finally, DoT instructions deal with practical matters such as e-KYC, D-KYC, reverification, and business connections. For a compliance team, the real job is therefore not simply to read the two-page Gazette. The documents have to be read together. Who Is Expected to Follow the User Identification Requirements? The DoT instructions explain the categories of authorised entities to which the Rules may apply. These include entities holding an authorisation under Section 3(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, as well as certain entities continuing under licences granted under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or migrating to the new authorisation framework in accordance with Section 3(6). This distinction is useful because not every company connected with the telecom industry is automatically an "authorised entity" for this purpose. A software vendor working for a telecom operator, for instance, does not become the authorised entity simply because it supports a KYC system. The applicable authorisation or continuing licence position has to be checked. That is the first compliance question telecom businesses should answer: what is the regulatory status of the entity providing the service? What Does Verifiable Biometric-Based Identification Mean for Businesses? The expression is important because Section 3(7) does not simply refer to ordinary document verification. The provision specifically requires a form of identification that is both biometric-based and verifiable, with the detailed method governed through the prescribed framework. DoT's implementation instructions also make clear that the User Identification Rules work with processes such as e-KYC, D-KYC, and user reverification. Businesses should avoid oversimplifying this into a statement such as "all users must now complete Aadhaar KYC." That would go beyond what S.O. 4616(E) itself says. The correct method depends on the applicable Rules, the user's circumstances, and the relevant DoT instructions. For telecom operators, this means existing subscriber-verification systems should be checked against the current framework rather than assuming that an older KYC process continues unchanged. What Happens to Earlier Telecom KYC Instructions? Telecom KYC did not begin in 2026. DoT has issued subscriber-verification instructions for many years. Its current User Identification notification list refers to earlier directions covering matters such as: verification of new prepaid and postpaid mobile subscribers; Digital KYC; Self-KYC; Aadhaar-based e-KYC; reverification of existing mobile connections; additional KYC requirements for business connections; KYC requirements for Internet Telephony Services; and SIM replacement involving end users of business connections. For example, DoT's list records Digital KYC instructions from 2019, Self-KYC and Aadhaar-based e-KYC instructions from 2021, business-connection KYC instructions from 2024, and Internet Telephony KYC requirements from 2025. The 2026 framework therefore does not begin from an empty regulatory position. The better approach for operators is to identify which earlier instructions continue to apply, which have been absorbed into the new framework, and whether any newer direction changes the way an existing process must operate. Simply deleting every old KYC SOP would be as risky as assuming that nothing has changed. What Do the New Rules Mean for Existing Connections? One question businesses are likely to ask is whether every existing telecom user now needs immediate fresh biometric verification. S.O. 4616(E) itself does not say that. The commencement notification only brings Section 3(7) into force. It does not contain an instruction requiring every existing subscriber to report for fresh verification on 21 August 2026. DoT separately maintains instructions dealing with reverification of existing mobile connections. Its current consolidated list refers to reverification directions issued in December 2021 and February 2022. Any fresh verification requirement should therefore be linked to the applicable Rules or a specific DoT direction rather than assumed merely from the commencement notification. For operators, that means existing connections and new connections should not automatically be treated as the same compliance situation. Business Connections Need Special Attention Corporate connections deserve a closer look because there can be more than one person involved. The connection may be taken in the name of a company, LLP, partnership, government body, or another organisation. In contrast, the SIM or telecom connection is actually used by an employee or another individual. This creates three different roles that compliance teams may have to distinguish: The business user is the organisation in whose business context the connection is being used. The authorised representative is the person authorised to act for that organisation. The end user is the person actually using the relevant business connection. This becomes particularly important where connections are regularly reassigned between employees. DoT's implementation instructions specifically deal with changes in the end user of a business connection. What Happens When a Business SIM Is Given to a New End User? This is one of the areas where the DoT instructions provide a clear timeline. According to the instructions published on the Department's portal, the authorised representative of a business user must inform the authorised entity about a change in the end user of a business connection within three working days from the date of the change. The instructions also state that the authorised representative must ensure that the new end user undergoes biometric-based identification within seven working days from the date of the change. Business Connection Event Time Allowed Main Responsibility End user of the connection changes Within 3 working days Inform the authorised entity New person starts using the connection Within 7 working days from the change Ensure biometric-based identification of the new end user This has a very practical consequence for employers. A company that reallocates corporate SIMs between employees cannot treat the change as purely an internal administrative matter. HR, administration, IT and whoever manages the telecom account may need a process for notifying the telecom provider and completing the required identification. A simple employee-exit checklist may therefore need to connect with the company's telecom-connection records. What Should Telecom Operators Review? For telecom operators, the regulatory change is less about creating one new form and more about checking whether the existing user-identification system still matches the law. A sensible review would start with the services being provided and the company's authorisation position. After that, the compliance team can look at the actual customer journey. Subscriber Onboarding Check how a new user is identified before a connection is provided. Existing e-KYC or D-KYC processes should be mapped against the current Rules and portal instructions. Business Accounts Enterprise connections often remain active for long periods while the individual end user changes. These accounts deserve separate controls because the person using the connection can be different from the company that originally obtained it. Reverification Teams should know what event or direction triggers reverification rather than treating it as an automatic requirement for every subscriber. Internal Records Subscriber records, authorised-representative information and end-user changes should remain consistent across customer, billing, KYC and enterprise-account systems. Staff and Channel Instructions A regulatory process can fail even when the written policy is correct if retail staff, enterprise teams or customer-support personnel follow an outdated procedure. That makes training and SOP review a practical part of implementation. What Should Companies Using Corporate Connections Do? The burden on an ordinary corporate user is different from the burden on the telecom operator. A company does not become responsible for operating the telecom provider's KYC system. It does, however, need control over the information it provides to the telecom company. Businesses with a sizeable pool of corporate connections should be able to answer a few basic questions without searching through several departments. Who is the authorised representative for the telecom account? Which employee or person is using each connection? When was a SIM last reassigned? Was the provider informed after the end user changed? Was the new user's required identification completed? These sound like small administrative details, but the three-working-day and seven-working-day requirements make them much more important for business connections. A useful internal arrangement is to connect telecom allocation with employee onboarding, transfers and exits. That reduces the chance of a company-owned connection continuing in the name of an old end user. Operator and Business User Responsibilities Are Not the Same Telecom Operator / Authorised Entity Corporate or Business User Apply the prescribed identification framework Provide accurate business and user information Carry out the required identification process Maintain an appropriate authorised representative Follow applicable DoT instructions Inform the provider of relevant end-user changes Maintain subscriber information required under the framework Keep internal SIM/end-user records current Handle applicable reverification Ensure the new end user participates in required verification Maintain regulatory controls around the process Coordinate telecom records with employee changes This distinction matters because articles on telecom KYC often speak about "business compliance" without explaining whether the obligation belongs to the telecom provider or to its customer. The two may have connected responsibilities, but they are not interchangeable. What About Misrepresentation of User Information? DoT's 2026 implementation instruction also refers to Rule 8 of the User Identification Rules and provides a format through which an authorised entity can inform the Central Government about specified misrepresentation. The format records the telecommunication identifier, the nature of the misrepresentation, and the steps taken by the authorised entity. This shows that user identification is not being treated merely as a one-time onboarding exercise. Accuracy of subscriber information remains relevant after the connection has been issued. For telecom operators, this means suspected identity misuse should be connected with the appropriate internal escalation and regulatory process. For businesses, it reinforces a simpler point: information relating to the actual user of a business connection should remain accurate. What S.O. 4616(E) Does Not Do Because the Gazette is so short, there is a risk of reading much more into it than it actually contains. S.O. 4616(E) does not, by itself: create a new telecom licence; ask operators to file a fresh registration application; provide a new application form; prescribe a government filing fee; list KYC documents; explain an e-KYC procedure; explain a D-KYC procedure; specify a separate compliance portal; create a periodic return; set a new audit frequency; provide a new inspection schedule; or contain its own penalty table. Its legal function is much narrower: it brings Section 3(7) into force from 21 August 2026. Operational details should therefore be taken from the applicable Rules and DoT instructions, not inserted into the commencement notification. Does This Notification Require a Fresh Telecom Licence? No. S.O. 4616(E) does not create a separate licence or registration simply for biometric user identification. Section 3(7) operates within the larger authorisation framework of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Section 3(1) separately deals with the requirement to obtain Central Government authorisation for specified telecom activities. Existing and new authorisation matters therefore need to be assessed under the relevant authorisation provisions and rules. They should not be mixed with the commencement of Section 3(7). This distinction is particularly relevant for businesses researching compliance online because phrases such as "biometric telecom registration" or "Section 3(7) licence" can easily create the impression that a separate application has been introduced. The attached Gazette does not support that conclusion. Where Could the Real Compliance Difficulty Arise? The biggest challenge is unlikely to be understanding the two-page notification. The harder part is translating the wider framework into day-to-day operations. For a large telecom operator, user identification can touch several teams at once: legal, regulatory affairs, customer onboarding, enterprise sales, KYC operations, IT, fraud control, and customer support. A change that looks minor from a legal perspective may therefore require several systems to communicate correctly. Business accounts present another practical issue. A company may own hundreds or thousands of active connections spread across offices and employees. The telecom provider may have one record, while HR has another and IT asset management has a third. If those records are not aligned, identifying the actual end user can become difficult. The new framework makes that gap worth examining. What Should Telecom Businesses Do Now? Rather than redesigning every process immediately, businesses can start with a focused compliance review. Priority Practical Review 1 Confirm whether the entity falls within the relevant authorised-entity framework 2 Identify which of its telecommunication services are covered by the applicable notification 3 Review current e-KYC, D-KYC and reverification procedures 4 Check the process followed for business connections 5 Review how changes in corporate end users are recorded 6 Check whether the 3-working-day and 7-working-day business-user timelines have been built into internal processes 7 Review existing SOPs and staff instructions 8 Monitor the DoT portal for updated directions and clarifications The purpose of this exercise is not to create paperwork for its own sake. It is to find out whether what the business actually does matches the rules it is now expected to follow. Will the New Framework Increase Compliance Costs? Possibly, but the impact will not be the same for every operator. S.O. 4616(E) itself does not prescribe an implementation fee. The practical cost is more likely to arise from internal changes: updating technology, adjusting onboarding systems, training customer-facing teams, managing corporate-user records, and reviewing existing processes. Large operators may already have much of this infrastructure because DoT had KYC, Digital KYC, Aadhaar-based e-KYC, business-connection and reverification instructions before 2026. For such businesses, the work may be more about aligning existing systems with the new statutory framework. Smaller organisations may find the process heavier if user-identification controls have historically been spread across different systems or teams. No single implementation-cost figure should therefore be treated as applicable to the whole industry. What Are the Possible Benefits? There is a clear policy logic behind stronger identification of telecom users. A connection linked more reliably with its actual user can make subscriber records more dependable. It may also make it harder to maintain connections using false or outdated identities. For business connections, accurate end-user records can help answer a basic question that can otherwise become surprisingly difficult: who was actually using this connection at a particular time? Other possible benefits include: better traceability of telecom connections; more reliable subscriber information; clearer accountability for corporate SIMs; stronger controls when a business connection changes hands; better handling of suspected identity misuse; and greater consistency between user-identification systems and the new Telecommunications Act framework. These should be viewed as expected regulatory benefits, not guarantees that identity fraud will disappear. Is Biometric User Identification a Right Decision or an Additional Burden? It is both a stronger control and an additional operational responsibility. Positive Side Compliance Concern Better assurance about user identity More work in onboarding and account management Improved traceability Technology and system changes may be required Better corporate end-user records Companies need tighter SIM allocation controls More structured response to identity misuse Staff and channel teams need updated training Stronger statutory basis for user identification Operators must align old KYC processes with the new framework From the regulator's side, there is a reasonable case for improving the quality of subscriber identification. Telecom connections can be misused when identity information is false, outdated, or disconnected from the person actually using the service. From the business side, stronger controls do not come without effort. The biggest burden is likely to fall on organisations handling very large numbers of users or corporate connections. Updating a single connection is straightforward. Keeping thousands of employee connections correctly mapped while people join, leave or move roles is a different exercise. The policy therefore looks less like a completely new KYC system and more like an attempt to place a firmer statutory structure around user identification. Its success will depend on how workable the prescribed processes remain for both operators and genuine users. A Small but Important Issue in the DoT Implementation Circular There is also an unusual drafting point business should be aware of. The DoT PDF currently available on the official portal for instructions under the User Identification Rules contains blank placeholders in parts of its header. The displayed document shows an incomplete date and circular number, and the reference to the notified services is also left incomplete in the text. At the same time, the same document contains substantive directions, including the three-working-day and seven-working-day requirements for changes in business-connection end users. This does not justify ignoring the document, but it does mean compliance teams should keep watching the DoT portal for a corrected, replaced, or clarified version. Where a document itself contains a visible drafting gap, businesses should not fill it with assumptions. How Corpseed Can Help Telecom user identification is no longer something that can be checked by looking at one KYC circular. Depending on the business, the answer may involve the Telecommunications Act, the User Identification Rules, earlier DoT instructions, the company's existing licence or authorisation position, business-connection controls and the way end-user changes are handled internally. This is where a telecom compliance consultant can help a business turn the legal framework into a practical review of its existing processes. Corpseed can support relevant telecom operators and businesses with: Section 3(7) applicability assessment:  reviewing whether the provision and related user-identification requirements apply to the entity and service concerned; Telecom regulatory compliance services:  examining the wider DoT framework connected with the business activity; Telecom KYC compliance assessment:  comparing existing e-KYC, D-KYC and reverification processes with applicable requirements; Business-connection compliance review:  checking authorised-representative and end-user management processes; Compliance gap assessment:  identifying differences between written procedures and the actual operating process; SOP and regulatory-document review:  helping teams organise internal user-identification and escalation procedures; Telecom authorisation compliance support:  where separate authorisation requirements under the Telecommunications Act are relevant; and Ongoing regulatory monitoring:  tracking relevant DoT notifications, instructions and clarifications. The purpose of professional support is not to replace the Department of Telecommunications or to guarantee a regulatory outcome. It is to help businesses identify the correct rules, understand what applies to their operations and reduce avoidable gaps between regulatory requirements and day-to-day practice. Businesses that need help reviewing their user-identification, corporate connection or DoT compliance processes can work with a telecom compliance consultant for a focused assessment instead of treating every telecom notification as a separate filing requirement. Key Takeaways Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 became operational on 21 August 2026 through S.O. 4616(E). The provision requires an authorised entity providing a notified telecommunication service to identify the user through prescribed verifiable biometric-based identification. The Gazette itself does not explain the complete KYC process. Detailed implementation has to be read with the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 and applicable DoT directions. DoT's current implementation instructions expressly refer to e-KYC, D-KYC, and user reverification. For business connections, an end-user change is particularly important. DoT's portal instructions require intimation within three working days and biometric-based identification of the new end user within seven working days from the change. Businesses should therefore focus less on creating unnecessary new filings and more on checking whether existing telecom KYC, corporate connection and user-management processes match the current framework.

Subject

Summary: The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has brought two specific categories of telecom services within the biometric user-identification requirement under the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Through notification S.O. 4623(e), dated 21 August 2026, the central government has notified wireless access services and internet telephony services through mobile user terminals. Authorized entities providing these services are required to ensure verifiable biometric-based identification of their users in accordance with the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026. The notification is only two pages long, but its wording has direct compliance consequences for the entities within its scope. At the same time, it should not be read more broadly than it is written. It does not say that every telecom service, every internet calling platform, or every user in India automatically falls under this particular notification. For telecom operators, the first job is therefore not to rush into a new verification process. It is to establish whether the service being offered is one of the services actually notified. Notification at a Glance Particular Verified Details Issuing authority Central Government Ministry Ministry of Communications Department Department of Telecommunications Document type Department of Telecommunications Notification number S.O. 4623(E) Date 21 August 2026 Gazette Gazette of India, Extraordinary Gazette section Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) Legal basis Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 Rules referred to Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 Service 1 Wireless access services Service 2 Internet telephony service through mobile user terminals Entity responsible Authorized entities providing the notified services Main requirement Verifiable biometric-based identification of users Separate compliance deadline Not expressly specified in S.O. 4623(E) Transition period Not expressly specified in S.O. 4623(E) File number F. No. 800-22/2024-AS.II The notification is precise about three things: the services covered, who carries the responsibility and the requirement that identification must follow the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026. It is much less detailed on implementation. There is no separate table of procedures, technology specifications, fees or transition dates in S.O. 4623(E) itself. The Regulatory Framework The August 2026 notification does not create an isolated biometric-KYC system. It sits within the broader structure of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026. Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act deals with authorization. Sub-section (7) states that an authorized entity providing a telecommunication service notified by the Central Government must identify the person receiving that service through a verifiable biometric-based identification method as prescribed. This explains why S.O. 4623(E) matters. The Act creates the legal mechanism. The government then issues a notification identifying the telecom services to which that mechanism applies. S.O. 4623(E) names two such categories. This distinction also prevents an unnecessarily broad interpretation. The legal requirement under Section 3(7) is tied to services notified by the Central Government, rather than being worded in the notification as a blanket requirement for every telecom service. Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 The second part of the framework is the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026. DoT's Telecom e-services Portal confirms that these Rules have been made live on the portal. S.O. 4623(E) expressly states that the biometric identification of users has to be ensured in accordance with these Rules. That is why the notification and Rules have to be read together. A simple way to understand the structure is: Legal Instrument What It Does Telecommunications Act, 2023 Provides the legal power and wider authorization framework S.O. 4623(E), 2026 Identifies the telecom services covered by this notification Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 Governs how user-identification requirements operate For a telecom business, reading only the Gazette notification is therefore not enough to design an operational KYC process. What Has Changed? The immediate change is that two categories of telecom services have now been expressly notified for Section 3(7). They are: wireless access services, and Internet telephony services through mobile user terminals. The responsibility rests with authorized entities providing those services. They are required to ensure verifiable biometric-based identification of the users to whom the services are provided. The practical position can be read as follows: Compliance Area Position Under S.O. 4623(E) Practical Meaning Wireless access services Expressly notified Relevant authorized providers come within the notification Internet telephony Covered where provided through mobile user terminals Exact service classification matters User identification Must be verifiable and biometric-based Provider must follow the applicable identification framework Responsible party Authorized entity Compliance responsibility lies with the service provider Manner of compliance According to the 2026 Rules S.O. 4623(E) cannot be read as the full operating procedure What should not be said is that telecom KYC itself started on 21 August 2026. The notification is narrower than that. Its job is to identify particular services for the biometric requirement under Section 3(7). Scope and Applicability of S.O. 4623(E) The most important compliance question is simple: does the service being provided fall within one of the two categories named in the notification? That question should be answered before technology, paperwork or internal processes are changed. Wireless Access Services Wireless access services are expressly mentioned in clause (a) of the notification. An authorized entity providing a service that falls within this category must therefore consider the biometric user-identification requirement and the corresponding 2026 Rules. The commercial name used for a service should not be the sole basis for determining applicability. The provider's regulatory authorization and the legal classification of the service should also be checked. Internet Telephony through Mobile User Terminals The wording of the second category deserves close attention. The Gazette does not simply say "internet telephony services." It says: "Internet telephony service through mobile user terminals." That qualification matters. A business should not assume that every VoIP product, internet calling platform, software application or online communication service automatically falls within this notification merely because voice communication takes place over the internet. The nature of the service, the way it is delivered, and the regulatory authorization under which it operates have to be looked at together. Applicability Matrix Service or Entity Position Under S.O. 4623(E) What Should Be Checked Wireless access service provider Expressly covered Authorization and user-identification process Internet telephony through mobile user terminals Expressly covered Whether the particular service fits the notified description Authorized entity providing either notified service Responsible for compliance Applicable User Identification Rules Other telecom service Not established by this notification alone Separate notification, Rules or authorization conditions General software or communication platform Cannot be decided from name alone Actual service model and telecom regulatory status This is one area where a telecom compliance consultant or internal regulatory team can add value. Applicability should be determined by the legal and operational facts rather than by assumptions about the technology being used. Who Is Responsible for the Biometric Identification Requirement? S.O. 4623(E) places the responsibility on the authorized entity providing the notified service. The relevant wording says that authorized entities shall ensure verifiable biometric-based identification of the users receiving those services. That may sound like a small drafting point, but it matters in practice. The user may have to participate in the verification process. The compliance responsibility under this notification, however, sits with the authorized service provider. For an operator, that turns biometric identification into more than a customer-KYC task. Legal, compliance, operations and technology teams may all have a role. The operator needs to know: Whether the service is covered, Which verification method is permitted under the Rules? Where verification takes place in the customer journey, Which team owns the process? How failures or exceptions are dealt with, and What evidence must be kept where the applicable Rules require it? Not every item in this list is separately written into S.O. 4623(E). They are practical questions that arise when an authorized entity converts the legal requirement into an operating process. What Does “Verifiable Biometric-Based Identification” Mean Here? The notification uses the expression “verifiable biometric-based identification”, but it does not provide its own detailed technical procedure. This is exactly where businesses need to avoid reading too much into a short Gazette notice. S.O. 4623(E) does not itself say that the only acceptable method is: Fingerprint verification, Facial authentication, Iris scanning, Aadhaar-based authentication, or Any particular biometric device or software. Those conclusions should not be added unless they are supported by the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 or another applicable DoT instruction. The safer compliance approach is first to identify the method permitted or prescribed by the official framework and then check whether the company's existing technology can support it. Buying a biometric solution and using a biometric solution that meets the applicable regulatory requirements are two different things. How S.O. 4623(E) and the User Identification Rules Work Together The notification answers “which notified services?” The Rules answer the wider question of “how user identification must be handled?” This division is important for management teams because otherwise businesses may treat the Gazette notice as if it were a complete implementation manual. It is not. The Department of Telecommunications also lists separate instructions on its e-services portal in connection with the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026. The portal shows an item titled “Instructions to be specified on the portal in accordance with the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026,” published on 9 August 2026. That tells affected entities something practical: the compliance framework extends beyond this single notification. The Rules and official instructions need to form part of the review. What Does This Mean for Wireless Access Service Providers? For a wireless access provider within the notified category, the issue moves from general awareness to operational readiness. The provider should first check how users are currently identified and whether that process fits the framework required under the 2026 Rules. Areas likely to require review include: Existing customer on boarding controls, Subscriber identity-verification procedures, Internal KYC responsibilities, Technology used for verification, Integration between customer and verification systems, Regulatory records maintained by the entity, and Internal escalation where verification cannot be completed. Some operators may already have mature digital on boarding systems. Others may rely on several systems or external service providers. The amount of work required will therefore differ from one authorized entity to another. S.o. 4623(e) does not prescribe a single implementation cost or a standard internal setup for every provider. What Does This Mean for Internet Telephony Providers? Internet telephony providers have an additional issue to settle before looking at compliance mechanics: service classification. The notification's reference is to internet telephony through mobile user terminals. A provider should therefore examine what service is actually being supplied, how the customer accesses it and under which telecom authorization the service is offered. This matters because internet-based communications can take many forms. A business may describe a product commercially as “calling,” “voice,” “communication”, or “VoIP,” but a marketing description by itself does not settle the regulatory position. If there is uncertainty, an applicability review should come before changes are made to KYC or biometric systems. How Could the Requirement Affect Telecom User On boarding? For affected providers, on boarding is likely to be one of the first business processes that needs examination. Biometric identification has to fit somewhere into the journey between a customer requesting a telecom service and that service being provided. The compliance team therefore needs to look beyond the verification screen itself. Questions worth checking include: At what point does the prescribed identification take place? Does the present KYC process use a method allowed under the Rules? Is verification connected correctly with service activation? How does the system deal with an unsuccessful verification? Who can approve an exception if the legal framework permits one? Are responsibilities clear between the KYC, technology and operations teams? Is the evidence required under the applicable Rules being captured correctly? These are practical review points. They should not be presented as separate duties created by S.O. 4623(E) unless the Rules expressly say so. Responsibilities across Telecom Teams A biometric user-identification requirement cannot normally be managed by one department working alone. Legal and Compliance Team The first responsibility is interpretation. This team should determine whether the service is covered, identify the relevant authorization and map the notification against the User Identification Rules and DoT instructions. A good compliance review should separate what is legally compulsory from what the company chooses to introduce as an internal control. KYC and Customer-On boarding Team The KYC team is responsible for turning regulatory requirements into a customer-facing process. If an existing process was designed under earlier instructions, it should be checked against the current framework rather than being carried forward automatically. Technology Team Technology teams need a clear legal requirement before they start changing systems. That reduces the risk of building a verification process around a technology that is not required or overlooking a condition that the applicable Rules actually prescribe. Operations Team Operations teams usually deal with what happens after a process goes live. They may need clear internal instructions covering staff responsibilities, unsuccessful verification, customer communication, and escalation. Information Security and Data Governance Biometric information requires careful handling. Any duty concerning storage, retention, access, sharing, or security should be derived from the applicable legal framework. S.O. 4623(E) itself does not prescribe a retention period or a detailed data-storage process. What the Notification Does Not Expressly Specify This section is just as important as explaining what the Gazette does say. S.O. 4623(E) does not expressly provide: A separate compliance deadline, A separate transition period, A standalone application form, A filing process for complying with this notification, A separate compliance fee, A new renewal procedure, A particular biometric device, A named biometric technology, A record-retention period, A product-testing requirement, or A separate penalty table. That does not mean these subjects can never arise under another provision. It means they should not be attributed to this notification without checking the Telecommunications Act, the 2026 Rules, relevant authorization conditions and other official DoT instructions. This approach matters because compliance content can easily become inaccurate when missing information is filled with assumptions. Is biometric identification required for every telecom service? No. S.O. 4623(E) by itself does not establish a biometric requirement for every telecom service in India. It expressly identifies two categories: Wireless access services, and Internet telephony service through mobile user terminals. A provider operating another telecommunications service should check its own legal position separately. The reverse is also true. A service not named in S.O. 4623(E) should not automatically be treated as free from every user-identification requirement. Other Rules, notifications, authorization terms or DoT instructions may still be relevant. The correct approach is service-by-service regulatory assessment. Compliance Requirements The clearest way to understand the legal position is to separate the requirements stated in S.O. 4623(E) from the wider implementation framework. What S.O. 4623(E) Expressly Requires For the services notified: An authorized entity is providing the relevant service, The service falls within one of the two specified categories, The authorized entity must ensure verifiable biometric-based identification of the user, and The identification has to be carried out in accordance with the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026. What Must Be Checked Separately The following should be verified from the Rules and applicable DoT instructions rather than assumed from the Gazette notification: Permitted biometric identification method, User on boarding procedure, Any alternative identification route, Treatment of different categories of users, Re-verification requirements, Documents or records to be maintained, System or portal requirements, Timelines under particular circumstances, and Operational instructions issued by DoT. This separation helps keep the compliance position accurate. Compliance Readiness for Authorized Telecom Entities A practical review does not need to start with a large technology project. It can start with a few basic questions. 1. Confirm Whether the Service Is Covered Map the actual service against the two categories notified in S.O. 4623(E). If classification is unclear, settle that issue first. 2. Check the Authorization Position Identify the authorization or legacy licensing framework under which the service is being provided. The status of the entity and the nature of the authorized service can affect the compliance analysis. 3. Read the User Identification Rules alongside the Notification Do not treat S.O. 4623(E) as the complete procedure. The Rules should be mapped to the business model and customer on boarding process. 4. Review the Existing KYC Process Document how the entity currently identifies users. The objective is to determine whether the current process already meets the applicable requirements or needs changes. 5. Carry out a Compliance Gap Assessment A compliance gap assessment can examine the difference between the current process and the verified DoT requirements. The review may cover legal interpretation, on boarding procedures, technology controls, record management and internal ownership. 6. Check Technology Readiness Any biometric or digital verification system should be tested against the regulatory requirements before major changes are made. A provider should not assume that commercially available biometric technology is automatically acceptable under the telecom framework. 7. Give Each Team Clear Ownership Legal, KYC, technology, information-security and operations teams should know which parts of the process they are responsible for. 8. Keep Monitoring DoT Instructions The DoT portal continues to publish material linked to user identification. Regulatory teams should monitor official updates rather than relying only on the original Gazette notification. Impact on Businesses The effect will not be identical for every company. Stakeholder Immediate Impact Likely Operational Effect Main Concern Authorized telecom entities Need to confirm applicability Regulatory and process review Correct service classification Wireless access providers Service expressly notified User-verification process may need alignment Compliance with 2026 Rules Covered internet telephony providers Scope must be checked carefully KYC and technology review Whether service fits the notified wording Legal and compliance teams Need to map notification and Rules More regulatory coordination Whether service fits the notified wording KYC teams Existing process needs review Possible workflow changes Correct user identification Technology teams System capability may need assessment Integration or configuration changes Using the permitted verification method Management Cross-team ownership needed Resource and implementation planning Avoiding both under- and over-compliance The notification may appear to deal only with user verification, but its operational effect can extend across several parts of a telecom business. That is why telecom regulatory compliance services can be useful when service classification, existing KYC systems, and regulatory requirements need to be examined together rather than separately. Benefits for Businesses and the Telecom Ecosystem A stronger identification process can have practical value when it is implemented correctly. For authorized entities, clearer user-identification controls can improve the reliability of subscriber records and reduce uncertainty about how a connection was issued. Other possible benefits include: Better consistency in user-verification procedures, Clearer responsibility for customer identification, Stronger internal KYC controls, Improved traceability of the verification process, Better alignment between compliance and on boarding systems, and A more structured basis for internal audits and reviews. These should be treated as potential regulatory and operational benefits, not guaranteed outcomes. S.O. 4623(E) does not promise that biometric verification will eliminate fraud, reduce operating costs or make on boarding faster. Challenges and Cost Implications The harder part for many operators may be implementation rather than understanding the two-page notification. Existing Systems May Need Review A company may already have digital KYC tools in place. That does not automatically mean those systems satisfy the current Rules. The existing setup has to be checked against the actual legal requirement. Different Teams Need to Work Together If the legal team interprets the requirement one way while the technology team builds something different, the company may end up with a process that is expensive but still incomplete. Clear internal ownership reduces that risk. Smaller Operators May Have Fewer Resources Entities with limited in-house regulatory or technology teams may depend more heavily on external vendors. This can make it even more important to define the legal requirements before purchasing or modifying technology. Compliance Costs Will Differ S.O. 4623(E) does not prescribe a standard implementation fee or cost. Actual expenses, where they arise, may depend on existing systems, integration requirements, staffing, vendor arrangements and internal compliance work. No fixed figure should therefore be presented as a government-prescribed cost for complying with this notification. Is the Biometric Identification Requirement a Right Decision or an Additional Burden? The answer depends on which part of the change is being considered. Where the Requirement Can Help From a regulatory-control perspective, stronger identity verification can make subscriber records more dependable. It can also make responsibility clearer. The authorized entity knows that identification cannot simply be treated as an informal customer on boarding step where the notified service is concerned. A defined biometric framework may also improve consistency in how users are verified across regulated services. Where Businesses May Feel the Burden Implementation can require time and resources. Some operators may need changes to their technology. Others may need to revisit procedures, vendor contracts, training or internal controls. The burden may be greater when an entity starts with an older or fragmented KYC system. There is another risk as well: over-compliance. A business that assumes the notification requires more than it actually does could spend money on technology or procedures that are not legally necessary. A Balanced View S.o. 4623(e) is useful because it clearly identifies the services brought within the Section 3(7) mechanism. The practical difficulty lies in translating that requirement into the correct operating process. For most authorized entities, the sensible approach is not to treat biometric identification as either purely beneficial or purely burdensome. The better question is whether the company can implement the verified requirement accurately without building unnecessary layers around it. Regulatory and Implementation Risks to Avoid Several risks can be reduced simply by reading the wording carefully. Businesses should avoid: Treating the notification as applicable to every telecom service, Assuming every form of internet calling falls within the notified category, Ignoring the words “through mobile user terminals”, Assuming biometric verification automatically means Aadhaar-only verification, Selecting fingerprint, facial or iris technology without checking the Rules, Treating 21 August 2026 as a separate compliance deadline when S.O. 4623(E) does not state one, Assuming every existing customer needs immediate re-verification without verifying the applicable Rules, Treating internal best practices as legal obligations, Relying on the notification without reading the User Identification Rules, and Making technology decisions before settling service applicability. Avoiding these mistakes can save both compliance effort and unnecessary implementation cost. What Businesses Should Do Next These actions are a practical readiness plan. They should not all be described as separate legal duties written into S.O. 4623(E). Priority Action Responsible Team Expected Result High Confirm whether the service is covered by S.O. 4623(E) Legal/Compliance Clear applicability position High Review the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 Legal/Compliance Verified requirement mapping High Check the current user-identification process KYC/Operations Existing gaps identified High Review authorization status and service classification Legal/Regulatory Correct regulatory context Medium Assess technology readiness Technology/Operations Clear implementation requirements Medium Assign internal ownership Management/Compliance Defined accountability Medium Review documentation and controls Compliance/KYC Better audit readiness Ongoing Monitor official DoT instructions Regulatory Team Updated compliance position The starting point is always the same: find out exactly what service is being provided and which part of the regulatory framework applies to it. How Can Corpseed Help? For a telecom provider, the difficult question is often not whether biometric identification exists as a regulatory requirement. The harder part is deciding whether the requirement applies to the service, what the applicable Rules require and what needs to change inside the business. Corpseed supports businesses through relevant telecom regulatory compliance services, including: Applicability assessment: reviewing the service model and regulatory position to determine whether the notified categories are relevant. Telecommunications Act and User Identification Rules review: mapping the notification to the wider statutory and rule-based framework. Telecom authorization compliance support: reviewing the entity's authorization or regulatory status in relation to the service being provided. Compliance gap assessment: comparing the present KYC, on boarding and internal-control framework with verified DoT requirements. User-identification process review: examining how customer verification currently works and where regulatory alignment may be required. Regulatory documentation review: helping organize policies, records and internal responsibilities connected with telecom compliance. Implementation-readiness support: coordinating legal, compliance, operations and technology considerations before process changes are made. Ongoing telecom regulatory consulting: tracking relevant DoT notifications, instructions and changes that may affect the user-identification framework. Professional support should help a business understand and apply the rules correctly. It cannot guarantee a regulatory outcome or replace the authority of the Department of Telecommunications. For authorized entities that are unsure whether their service falls within S.O. 4623(E), working with a telecom compliance consultant can help settle the applicability question before money is spent on new systems or process changes. Businesses looking for telecom regulatory compliance services can also use professional support to review their current user-identification framework, identify gaps and organize implementation around the requirements that actually apply. Key Takeaways The DoT biometric user identification notification 2026 is focused rather than general. It brings two identified service categories within the biometric user-identification requirement under Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. DoT issued S.O. 4623(E) on 21 August 2026. It has been issued under Section 3(7) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. It covers wireless access services and internet telephony services through mobile user terminals. The responsibility lies with authorized entities providing those services. Users must be identified through a verifiable biometric-based process in accordance with the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026. The notification does not itself specify a separate deadline, transition period, fee, biometric device or detailed operating procedure. Other telecom services should not automatically be treated as covered by this particular notification. Affected providers should first confirm applicability and then review their KYC, technology and operational processes against the applicable Rules.

Subject

Summary: India's telecom user-verification system now has a fresh set of statutory rules. The Department of Telecommunications, under the Ministry of Communications, notified the Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 through G.S.R. 750(E) on 21 August 2026. The Rules came into force on the date they were published in the Official Gazette. The change is not limited to people buying a new SIM card. The Rules deal with biometric identification at several points in a telecom connection's life, including new enrolment, specified changes in user information, disconnection and reverification. They are particularly important for telecom operators and companies using business connections because the framework also deals with authorised representatives, individual end users of corporate connections, Subscriber Data Records and Point of Sale operations. For businesses, the practical question is simple: who now needs to be identified, when does biometric verification apply, and what internal processes need to change? That is where the real impact of the 2026 Rules lies. Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Ministry Ministry of Communications Notification G.S.R. 750(E) Notification Date 21 August 2026 Rules Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 Parent Law Telecommunications Act, 2023 Effective Date Telecommunications Act, 2023 Main Requirement Verifiable biometric-based identification of users Main Verification Routes e-KYC and D-KYC Business Connections Specifically covered Corporate End Users Biometric identification applies where required Technical Readiness Period Three months from commencement Possible Extension Further period not exceeding three months, if granted Digital Implementation Further period not exceeding three months, if granted The Gazette makes one point very clear: compliance with these Rules is tied to the authorisation or licence held by the relevant telecom entity. This makes user identification part of the operator's regulatory responsibility, rather than just a customer-onboarding formality. How Did the 2026 Rules Come Into Effect? The final Rules were preceded by a draft. The Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2025 were published through G.S.R. 691(E) dated 19 September 2025. Copies of the Gazette were made available to the public on 22 September 2025, and objections and suggestions were invited for 30 days from that date. The final Gazette states that the Central Government considered the objections and suggestions received during the consultation before issuing the 2026 Rules. That history matters because the August 2026 notification is no longer a draft or proposal. It is the final notified framework. What Is the Legal Basis of the New Telecom KYC Rules? The Rules have been issued under Section 56 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. They apply to biometric-based identification carried out by the authorised entities covered under Rule 3. This includes specified entities operating under authorisations issued under the Telecommunications Act, certain existing licence holders continuing under the conditions recognised by the Act, and entities that have migrated to the new authorisation framework. The Rules go a step further by stating that compliance with them forms part of the terms and conditions of the relevant authorisation or licence. So for an authorised telecom entity, non-compliance is not merely an internal KYC lapse. It can also become an issue under its authorisation or licence conditions. Who Is Actually Covered by the Rules? The notification uses several different terms, and they should not be mixed. A telecom operator, an individual customer, a corporate customer, an employee using a corporate SIM and a retail Point of Sale do not carry the same responsibilities. Stakeholder Why the Rules Matter Authorised telecom entities They carry the main implementation and verification obligations Relevant licence holders The Rules form part of applicable licence or authorisation conditions Individual telecom users They may need biometric identification at specified stages Business users Corporate and organisational telecom connections are specifically covered Authorised representatives They represent the business user for relevant telecom matters End users The individual actually using a business connection may need verification Points of Sale They handle enrolment and other telecom activities but face strict data-handling controls Understanding these roles is important because many of the operational problems are likely to arise where the organisation owning the connection and the person actually using it are different. That is common with employee SIMs, field-sales numbers, business mobile fleets and other corporate telecom arrangements. What Does "Business User" Mean Under the Rules? The definition is broader than just a private company. A business user can include a: company, partnership firm, Limited Liability Partnership, trust, cooperative society, society, Central Government Department, State Government Department, or person holding a trade or business licence or permit issued under applicable law. A business connection means one or more telecom connections or Subscriber Identity Modules provided to such a business user for its bona fide use. This is why the Rules have relevance far beyond large telecom companies. Organisations that maintain corporate connections also need to understand how the end-user provisions work. Who Is an Authorised Representative? The authorised representative is the individual recognised for the business user under the Rules. This person may be: a whole-time member of the governing body entrusted with management of the business, the chief executive, where substantial management powers have been entrusted to that person, or another individual specifically authorised by the governing body or chief executive. From a practical point of view, businesses should know who is handling telecom connections on their behalf. That becomes especially important where hundreds or thousands of employee numbers are linked to one corporate account. The Rules themselves do not say that every business must use one particular form of board resolution. Any internal documentation should therefore be aligned with the actual legal and telecom-provider requirements instead of being assumed. Who Is the "End User" of a Corporate SIM? An end user is the individual who actually uses the Subscriber Identity Module supplied to a business user. Suppose a company obtains a telecom connection in its own name and assigns the SIM to an employee. The company is the business user, while the employee using that SIM is the end user for the purpose described in the Rules. The distinction matters because biometric identification can extend to the authorised representative as well as the individual end user. This is one of the provisions that may require companies to improve internal tracking of employee connections. Which Types of SIM Are Covered? The notification uses the broader term Subscriber Identity Module rather than limiting the Rules to a traditional plastic SIM card. The definition includes: pluggable SIMs, embedded SIMs or e-SIMs, integrated SIMs or iSIMs, virtual SIMs, and other equivalent Subscriber Identity Modules. This keeps the framework usable even as the technology used to identify telecom subscribers changes. When Does Biometric Identification Become Necessary? Biometric identification is not limited to the first purchase of a connection. Rule 3 identifies four main situations. Situation Requirement New connection or SIM enrolment Biometric identification before enrolment Specified user-information update Biometric identification before the update User-requested disconnection Biometric identification before accepting disconnection Reverification Required when directed under Rule 7 This creates an identity check at points where control of the connection or its subscriber information could materially change. For users, that means activities such as SIM replacement or changing certain identity details can no longer be viewed as routine database updates alone. For operators, each of those activities needs to be mapped into the correct verification workflow. e-KYC and D-KYC: What Is the Difference? The Rules create two separate identification routes. e-KYC e-KYC is the route applicable to an Aadhaar number holder under the framework laid down in Rule 4. The authorised entity uses the e-KYC authentication facility and processes the relevant e-KYC data and user information in accordance with Government directions and the applicable Aadhaar framework. D-KYC D-KYC is provided for a person who: is not an Aadhaar number holder, or holds Aadhaar but cannot complete e-KYC because the required live biometric capture cannot be authenticated for reasons such as impairment, disfigurement, injury or amputation. This second route is important because it means the Rules do not simply say that Aadhaar is the only possible way to obtain telecom service. Area e-KYC D-KYC User category Aadhar number holder Non-Aadhar holder or specified person unable to complete e-KYC Main route Aadhaar-linked authentication Document and biometric verification Live facial capture As required under the applicable process Expressly part of D-KYC Supporting documents Governed by applicable framework Expressly part of D-KYC Due diligence Authentication-led Detailed identity and document checks Field verification Not the central process May be used where Rule 5 permits How Does e-KYC Work Under Rule 4? The e-KYC process is not simply a face scan taken at a retail counter. The authorised entity must follow the orders, directions, instructions and guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time. It must use the e-KYC authentication facility for authenticating user information and store or process the prescribed details in the Customer Application Form and Subscriber Data Record. The information includes e-KYC data received through the applicable Aadhaar framework, including the Aadhaar number, along with user information. The wider point for operators is that customer onboarding systems, subscriber records and authentication processes all need to work together. How Does D-KYC Work? D-KYC involves a more detailed verification process. The authorised entity first determines the category under which the user qualifies for D-KYC. If the records show that the person has previously completed e-KYC, the entity may also need to obtain the undertaking required under Rule 5. The process includes live facial capture and collection of user information. The authorised entity must electronically capture images of the original proof-of-identity and proof-of-address documents specified through the portal. As part of the due diligence, the entity must verify: Whether the user's identity and address claims are satisfactory. Whether the live face capture matches the person present before the verifier. Whether the electronic document image matches the original document. Whether the face captured live matches the photograph on the document. Where an earlier telecom connection exists, whether the newly captured information matches the existing Subscriber Data Record. In the circumstances specified under Rule 5, the authorised entity may also conduct a field visit, seek police assistance for verification, or use both measures. One point remains open. The Gazette does not itself provide the final list of acceptable identity and address documents. This list may be specified through the digital portal. What if Normal Facial Capture Is Not Possible? The Rules recognise that one standard biometric method will not work for every person. Where a user cannot undergo live facial capture for reasons such as impairment, disfigurement or injury, the authorised entity must offer an accessible alternative for providing other biometric information. The D-KYC provisions then apply with the necessary adjustments. This is not an optional customer-service gesture. It forms part of the identification framework itself. What Changes for Corporate and Business Telecom Connections? Business connections deserve separate attention because the Rules recognise both the organisation and the person actually using the connection. Where a business user seeks a business connection, the authorised entity must carry out biometric identification of: the authorised representative of the business, and each end user of the business connection, where applicable. There is also a power for the Central Government or an authorised officer to exempt an authorised entity from carrying out biometric identification of an end user or a class of end users when the legal conditions are satisfied and reasons are recorded in writing. For a company managing corporate SIMs, the practical lesson is that the telecom account cannot be managed only as a bulk inventory of mobile numbers. The identity of the actual person using the connection now becomes relevant to the regulatory process. What Happens When an Employee Using a Business SIM Changes? This is likely to be one of the more operationally important rules for corporate users. If the end user linked to a business connection changes, the authorised representative of the business must inform the authorised telecom entity within the period specified through the portal. The authorised representative must also ensure that the new end user completes biometric identification within the portal-specified period. If the verification is not completed within that period, the authorised entity must suspend the business connection until the new end user completes biometric identification. The Gazette does not specify the exact number of days for either action. That timeline is left to the portal. Companies should, therefore, avoid assuming a fixed legal deadline. Instead, they should create an internal process that can be updated once the Department of Telecommunications specifies the applicable period through the portal. What Happens During SIM Replacement or a Change in User Details? Rule 6 requires biometric identification when the user seeks to: replace a Subscriber Identity Module, change name, change gender, change date of birth, or change the user of the connection under the permitted provisions. The authorised entity must also carry out due diligence and compare the information collected during biometric verification with the existing Subscriber Data Record. This makes SIM replacement and important identity changes more controlled transactions rather than simple service requests. Can a Connection Be Transferred to Another Person? Yes, but only within the framework set by Rule 6. A change of user can be made in relation to: a relative, a legal heir, or another class of users that may be specified through the portal. The new user is treated as receiving a new telecom connection. Where the existing user is alive and able to complete the process, the Rule contemplates a No Objection Certificate and biometric identification of both the existing and new users. Where incapacity prevents the existing user from meeting a requirement, a medical certificate can be used in the circumstances specified. Where the existing user has died, the Rule provides for a death certificate and biometric identification of the new user. This should not be interpreted as a free right to hand over a SIM to any other person. Subscriber Data Records Will Become More Important Several provisions depend on the Subscriber Data Record maintained by the authorised entity. When relevant user information changes, the authorised entity must update its records while keeping both the old and new information along with a timestamp. Users must also promptly inform their service provider about changes to their address and other relevant information. From a compliance perspective, this places greater importance on keeping subscriber records accurate and up to date instead of treating KYC as a one-time exercise. For telecom operators, poor data quality could create issues that go beyond billing or customer service. What Duties Do Telecom Users Have? The Rules also place responsibilities on the person using the telecom service. Users must provide correct information while establishing their identity. They must not: provide false, incorrect or forged information or documents, suppress material information, impersonate another person, or resell, transfer or lease a telecom connection or SIM except where a transfer is permitted under the applicable Rules. Users are also expected to make bona fide use of notified telecom services and promptly report changes in their address and user information. Where the address changes, supporting evidence of the new address must be provided. Authorised entities have to clearly explain these duties and obtain an explicit acknowledgement from users. What Extra Responsibilities Fall on Telecom Operators? The new framework is much wider than performing KYC at the time of sale. An authorised entity has to manage several connected responsibilities. User Communication Customers must be told, in clear terms, what their duties are and what may happen if those duties are ignored. Subscriber Information Records must be updated properly, and old and new information needs to be retained with timestamps where the Rules require it. Business Connections Corporate accounts need a process for authorised representatives and changes in end users. Grievance Handling Complaints related to biometric identification have to be addressed through the grievance mechanism established by the authorised entity. Fraud Response False documents, impersonation and similar issues cannot remain merely an internal customer-service case. The Rules create specific escalation requirements. Point of Sale Oversight Retail outlets, agents, distributors and other Points of Sale need to operate within strict information-handling controls. Taken together, these requirements make telecom KYC a cross-functional compliance issue involving operations, legal, technology, information security, customer support and enterprise-account teams. Point of Sale Data Handling Is One of the Most Important Changes Retail telecom operations often involve large dealer and distributor networks, making Rule 8 particularly important. Where a Point of Sale collects or receives user information or biometric information under the Rules, it must securely transmit that information to the relevant systems of the authorised entity. The Point of Sale must not store the information in physical or electronic form. For operators, this may require a closer review of how retail applications, devices and local systems currently handle user data. Practices such as using screenshots, local folders, printed copies or unofficial applications could create compliance issues if they result in prohibited storage. Internal controls such as device restrictions, application permissions, staff training and retail audits may therefore become important implementation measures, even though the notification does not prescribe each of these controls by name. Data Protection and Security Cannot Be Treated Separately Biometric information is highly sensitive from an operational perspective. The Rules require the Subscriber Data Record to be operated and maintained in accordance with applicable law, including laws relating to data protection and security. The Government may also issue further directions covering the confidential, secure, non-repudiable and immutable storage and maintenance of user information. This means compliance cannot stop at asking, "Was the user verified?" Operators should also consider: Is the information being stored securely? Who can access the records? Are changes to subscriber information properly tracked? Are systems protected against unauthorised changes or access? Are retail and internal processes aligned with applicable data protection and security requirements? Those are likely to become important questions during implementation. What Happens if a Customer Raises a Biometric KYC Complaint? Every authorised entity must use its established grievance mechanism to deal with complaints relating to biometric-based identification. That sounds straightforward, but the underlying cases may not be. A complaint could involve: a failed biometric match, incorrect subscriber information, a SIM issued against the wrong identity, an end-user mismatch, disputed replacement, unauthorised information change, or disputed disconnection. A workable grievance process will therefore need access to both customer-facing records and technical verification information. What Happens if Fake Documents or Impersonation Are Detected? The Rules require a formal response. If the authorised entity becomes aware that false, incorrect or forged information or documents were presented or used during biometric identification, material information was suppressed, or impersonation took place, it must inform the police or relevant law-enforcement agency for registration of an FIR. The authorised entity must also inform the Central Government about the steps taken in the form and manner specified through the portal. If the Central Government finds that the authorised entity did not take the required action, it can direct the entity to report the matter and may initiate further action under the Telecommunications Act or licence conditions. For operators, this makes fraud escalation an area that should be clearly allocated internally. A case cannot simply remain unresolved between a retail outlet and customer-support team. Suspension and Reverification: How Does the Process Work? Rule 7 deals with connections provided in violation of the identification requirements. If such a case comes to the notice of the Central Government, it may direct the authorised entity to immediately suspend the connection or Subscriber Identity Module. Fresh biometric identification can then be required within the period specified by the Government. If the identification is not completed as directed, the Central Government may direct disconnection. The broad sequence is: Suspension- Fresh Biometric Verification- Possible Disconnection Other proceedings available under the Telecommunications Act may continue separately. Biometric Verification Is Also Required for Disconnection A user's request to disconnect a telecom connection is also subject to identity checks. Before accepting the request, the authorised entity must undertake biometric identification and due diligence to confirm the user's identity. The captured information must be checked against the Subscriber Data Record. After disconnection, the relevant records must be updated while retaining the previous and updated information along with timestamps. This process reduces the risk of an unauthorised person shutting down someone else's telecom connection. User Alerts Could Become an Additional Fraud Check Rule 10 allows the Central Government to require authorised entities to send alerts through a user's existing telecom connections. The purpose is to confirm whether the person actually made the request relating to the connection or Subscriber Identity Module. This could be useful for detecting unusual enrolment, SIM replacement, information-change or disconnection requests. The alert mechanism is not automatically triggered for every transaction simply because the Rules exist. It applies when required through Government orders, directions, instructions or guidelines. What if the User Says, "I Didn't Make This Request"? A negative response can trigger immediate safeguards. Depending on the type of request, the authorised entity may need to: suspend the connection, suspend the replacement SIM, restore the earlier user information, put an information update on hold, restore a connection that had already been disconnected, or keep the disconnection request pending. The measure continues while the entity checks the facts and takes appropriate action. This part of the framework gives the user a way to challenge an identity-sensitive telecom request before the consequences become permanent. The Three-Month Implementation Window Is Important The Rules do not give authorised entities an unlimited period to prepare. Every authorised entity must, within three months from the date the Rules came into force, take appropriate technical and organisational measures and establish the infrastructure needed for effective compliance. The Central Government may extend that period, but only after assessing preparedness and where it considers an extension necessary in the public interest. Any extension cannot exceed a further three months. Stage Position Rules notified 21 August 2026 Rules effective Date of Gazette publication Initial preparation period Three months Initial preparation period Possible, but not automatic Maximum additional period Not more than three months Businesses should not assume that the additional period has already been granted. Unless the Government issues such an extension, compliance planning should be based on the original three-month window. Some Important Details Are Still to Come Through the Portal The Gazette creates the legal framework, but not every operational detail appears in the 17-page notification. Rule 11 allows the Government to notify one or more digital portals. These portals may provide: forms, proof-of-identity document lists, proof-of-address document lists, prescribed manners and procedures, orders, directions, instructions, and guidelines. The portal is also relevant to several provisions elsewhere in the Rules, including deadlines connected with changes in business end users. This creates an important compliance distinction. Some requirements are already part of the law. Their operating detail, however, may still depend on a later portal specification. What Should Telecom Operators Do Now? The first priority should not be buying new software. It should be understanding exactly where the current process differs from the Rules. A structured review could start with these questions: Does the current onboarding process distinguish e-KYC and D-KYC correctly? Can the system identify situations where biometric verification must be repeated? How are SIM replacements handled? Can old and new subscriber information be retained with timestamps? Is corporate SIM usage mapped to actual end users? Can the enterprise team quickly record a change in end user? Does any Point of Sale retain user or biometric information locally? Is there a clear process for biometric grievances? Who handles suspected impersonation or forged documents? Is law-enforcement reporting connected to the compliance team? Are systems ready to integrate future portal specifications? These questions give management a much clearer picture than treating implementation as a single "KYC update". What Should Companies With Corporate SIMs Do? Businesses that use corporate connections do not need to become telecom KYC providers. They do, however, need better control over who is using each connection. A practical starting point is to: identify the authorised representative dealing with the telecom provider, prepare an accurate list of active company connections, map each SIM to the person actually using it, connect telecom allocation with employee onboarding and exit processes, record changes when a SIM moves from one employee to another, inform the telecom provider within the applicable period once specified, ensure the new user completes required biometric verification, and monitor further portal instructions. The company should not start collecting employee biometric information on its own simply because these Rules require biometric identification by authorised telecom entities. What Are the Likely Benefits? The new system can improve control at several points where telecom identity misuse may occur. Potential benefits include: better assurance that a connection is linked to the correct person, stronger control over SIM replacement, clearer responsibility for corporate SIM usage, improved subscriber-data accuracy, better detection of unauthorised changes, more structured fraud escalation, restrictions on local storage of biometric information at Points of Sale, and verification before disconnection. These are reasonable outcomes of the regulatory design. They should not be presented as a guarantee that telecom fraud will disappear. Where Will Businesses Face Difficulty? The biggest challenge is unlikely to be understanding the idea behind biometric verification. It will be implementing it at scale. A large telecom operator may have retail outlets, franchisees, distributors, enterprise teams, call centres, mobile applications and multiple customer databases. Changing one KYC process can affect all of them. Initial work may involve: application changes, biometric system integration, subscriber-data redesign, Point of Sale controls, employee training, revised enterprise workflows, security reviews, revised grievance procedures, and new fraud escalation processes. There will also be ongoing work. New end users have to be managed, D-KYC exceptions need handling, subscriber information must remain current, disputes need investigation and later DoT instructions will need to be incorporated. The Gazette does not specify how much this will cost. Any cost estimate should therefore come from an operator's own technology and operational assessment. Is This a Right Decision or an Additional Burden? It is both a stronger control mechanism and a more demanding compliance system. W hat the Framework Improves What Busine sses Must Manage Identity assurance Biometric technology Subscriber traceability More detailed records Corporate SIM accountability End-user administration Fraud detection Escalation and reporting PoS information control Retail network monitoring Secure subscriber data Cybersecurity obligations Digital implementation New portal integration From a regulatory standpoint, requiring stronger proof of the person behind a telecom connection has clear logic, particularly where SIMs can be used for financial, digital and identity-linked activities. The main challenge will be execution. If future portal instructions are clear and systems work reliably, the framework can improve subscriber accountability without making routine telecom transactions unnecessarily difficult. If implementation is fragmented, operators may face customer delays, retail confusion and higher operational workload. The quality of the final implementation will therefore matter just as much as the wording of the Rules. Business Opportunities That May Arise New compliance requirements normally create demand for systems and support that help businesses implement them. Under this framework, that may include work relating to: biometric verification systems, telecom KYC platforms, identity-verification technology, Subscriber Data Record management, secure API and database integration, Point of Sale controls, information-security systems, regulatory compliance reviews, SOP development, telecom compliance audits, and corporate SIM administration. These are likely commercial effects of implementation. They are not Government incentives or guaranteed business opportunities. Compliance Risks That Telecom Businesses Should Avoid Several mistakes could create problems during implementation. One is treating the notification only as a "new SIM KYC rule". It goes much further. Other risks include: ignoring corporate end-user provisions, assuming every user must use Aadhaar e-KYC, failing to build a workable D-KYC route, leaving biometric information on Point of Sale devices, failing to update Subscriber Data Records, losing historical user information or timestamps, not having a clear fraud-escalation route, assuming the additional three-month extension is automatic, using a guessed deadline where the portal has yet to prescribe one, and allowing company SIMs to move between employees without an internal control process. How Corpseed Can Help The Telecommunications (User Identification) Rules, 2026 affect more than customer onboarding. They touch telecom KYC, subscriber records, corporate connections, Point of Sale operations, data protection, fraud reporting and internal operating procedures. For organisations dealing with these requirements, the first need is usually clarity: which Rules apply, what is already compliant, and where does the current process need to change? Corpseed can support telecom operators and relevant businesses through telecom regulatory compliance services tailored to their actual operating structure. Support may include: Regulatory applicability assessment to identify which provisions of the 2026 Rules apply to the organisation. Telecom compliance gap assessment to compare existing systems and procedures with the new requirements. Telecom KYC compliance services covering enrolment, e-KYC, D-KYC, SIM replacement, reverification and disconnection workflows. Business connection compliance review for authorised representatives, corporate SIMs and end users. Corporate SIM compliance support to review employee allocation, reassignment and end-user change processes. Point of Sale compliance review covering collection, transmission and storage of user and biometric information. Data protection compliance services for Subscriber Data Records, sensitive user information and internal security controls. Policy and SOP review to bring internal telecom processes in line with the applicable requirements. Implementation-readiness review for the technical, organisational and infrastructure requirements under the Rules. Regulatory monitoring for later DoT portals, orders, directions and instructions. A telecom compliance consultant can help an organisation organise these requirements into practical work streams, but professional support does not replace the Department of Telecommunications or guarantee any regulatory outcome. Businesses that need help understanding their position under the 2026 Rules can use telecom regulatory consulting services to review existing KYC, corporate SIM, subscriber-data and Point of Sale processes before implementation gaps turn into operational problems. Key Takeaways The Telecommunications User Identification Rules, 2026 introduce a more structured approach to identifying people who obtain, use, update, or disconnect notified telecom services. The key compliance points for businesses are: Biometric identification: It may apply not only at enrolment but also during specified information changes, SIM replacement, reverification and disconnection. e-KYC and D-KYC: The Rules provide separate e-KYC and D-KYC routes, so Aadhaar is not presented as the only possible identification route. Corporate connections: Businesses need to pay close attention to the roles of the authorised representative and the actual end user. Subscriber records: Telecom operators should review Subscriber Data Records, Point of Sale practices, grievance handling, fraud escalation and data security controls. Implementation period: The initial technical and organisational implementation period is three months from commencement. A further extension of up to three months is possible only if granted by the Central Government. Pending operational details: Some portal-based procedures, and time periods still need to be specified. Continued monitoring of Department of Telecommunications directions will therefore remain important for compliance planning.

Subject

Summary: The DoT issued notifications of three TEC specifications for telecom equipment on 3 August 2026, and they were published in the Gazette of India on 6 August 2026. If your organization is engaged in the manufacture, import, or sale of IoT gateways, Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) customer-premises equipment, or underground telecom cables, the new notification directly impacts the technical standard for TEC certification of your products. In simple terms, a "TEC standard" is a technical rulebook. It specifies exactly which performance, safety, and quality requirements a piece of telecom equipment must meet before it can be tested, certified, and legally sold, imported, or deployed on an Indian telecom network. When DoT "notifies" a standard, that rulebook becomes the official reference point that testing labs and certification authorities use to check your product. Without a notified standard, a product category can sit in a grey zone where certification is slow, inconsistent, or simply not possible. For businesses, the practical takeaway is simple: if you make or import IoT gateways, FWA CPE, or the specific underground cable construction covered here, you need to confirm your certification paperwork references the correct, current standard number. Getting this wrong even on a technicality like an outdated standard reference can mean delayed shipments, held-up customs clearance, or a rejected certification application. Getting your documentation, testing plan, and certification strategy right the first time is exactly where experienced regulatory compliance support, such as Corpseed's TEC/MTCTE certification assistance, can save real time, cost, and back-and-forth with authorities. Key Highlights Issued under Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (44 of 2023), read with Rule 5 of the Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025. Three standards have been formally notified for telecommunication equipment. Standard 1: TEC 33011:2026 Test Guide for IoT Gateway. Standard 2: TEC 21141:2026 Test Guide for Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) Customer Premises Equipment. Standard 3: TEC 68090:2026 Generic Requirements for Solid Polythene Insulated, Fully Jelly-Filled, Polythene-Sheathed Underground Telecom Cables. The standards take effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, i.e., 6 August 2026. This notification does not impose any additional time limit for compliance beyond the effective date noted above. These standards form part of India's wider certification regime (MTCTE), which applies to telecom equipment manufactured, imported, or used in India. Organizations that are already certified for comparable products are advised to confirm whether their existing standard reference remains relevant. The Regulatory Framework Applicable Act: The Telecommunications Act, 2023, which is the primary legislative framework governing telecom networks, spectrum, and telecom equipment in India. This Act largely replaces the colonial-era Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as the cornerstone for telecommunication regulation. Applicable Regulations: Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025. These regulations have been notified to establish a systematic approach to setting technical standards and ensuring compliance through conformity assessment. The regulations cover all stakeholders in the telecoms equipment chain: manufacturers, importers, laboratories, telecoms operators, and, by extension, consumers of such equipment. The regulations have formally repealed the previous Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017, which had governed the testing and certification of telecoms equipment for nearly a decade. However, the standards and certification criteria remain valid until a fresh notification under Section 19 of the Act repeals them, which is essentially what this 3 August 2026 notification does. Notifying Authority: Telecommunication Engineering Centre (TEC), the technical wing of the Department of Telecommunications, originally established in 1991 to develop and maintain technical standards for telecom equipment and networks in India. TEC also acts as the Designating Authority, appointing accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs), the labs authorised to test equipment and issuing the final TEC certificate once a lab's test report confirms compliance. How TEC Standards Are Classified: TEC organises its technical benchmarks into a few recognised categories, including Generic Requirements (GRs), baseline requirements applicable broadly to a product category, Interface Requirements (IRs), Service Requirements (SRs), and Test Guides, which specifically define the test methods and procedures used to check conformity. In this notification, two of the three standards (TEC 33011:2026 and TEC 21141:2026) are Test Guides. At the same time, the third (TEC 68090:2026) is a Generic Requirements document, meaning it sets the baseline technical benchmark for the cable type itself. At the same time, the two Test Guides define how conformity of the IoT gateway and FWA CPE products is actually verified in a lab. Legal Background: Under Rule 5 of the 2025 Rules, the Central Government, acting through TEC, is empowered to notify technical standards for defined categories of telecom equipment formally. Once notified in the Official Gazette, a standard becomes the binding reference document against which conformity assessment (testing and certification) is carried out for that equipment category, and it feeds directly into the MTCTE certification process. Scope: This notification covers three equipment categories: IoT gateways, FWA customer premises equipment, and a specific type of underground telecom cable. It does not change the certification process, application procedure, or fee structure; it only adds or updates the technical standards that testing labs and TEC will apply when assessing these product categories in the future. Industries Covered: Telecom equipment manufacturers, IoT hardware developers, fixed wireless broadband equipment vendors, telecom cable manufacturers, equipment importers, telecom infrastructure contractors, and telecom service providers who procure or deploy this equipment across their networks. What Has Changed? The notification formally brings three specific technical documents into force as official TEC standards, each tied to a distinct equipment category. Here is what each one covers, in plain terms: Standard Document Type Product Category What It Essentially Covers TEC 33011:2026 Test Guide IoT Gateway Defines how an IoT gateway device should be tested to confirm it meets the required performance and conformity benchmarks TEC 21141:2026 Test Guide Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) Customer Premises Equipment Defines how FWA customer-end equipment such as the wireless broadband receiver unit installed at a subscriber's premises should be tested for conformity TEC 68090:2026 Generic Requirements Solid Polythene Insulated, Fully Jelly-Filled, Polythene-Sheathed Underground Telecom Cables Lays down the baseline generic technical requirements this specific cable construction must meet A Test Guide, in practical terms, is the document that a testing lab follows, step by step, to determine whether a sample product passes or fails against the relevant benchmark. It typically defines the test setup, parameters checked, and pass/fail criteria for that product type. Generic Requirements, on the other hand, define the underlying technical specification the product itself must be built and manufactured to meet in this case, construction and performance requirements for the cable's insulation, jelly-filling, and sheathing. Previous position vs. new position: The notification text does not explicitly state that it withdraws or replaces an earlier version of a standard for these three categories it notifies them as the current applicable standards with effect from the Gazette publication date. If your product currently holds a certification referencing an older or interim standard for IoT gateways, FWA CPE, or this cable construction, it is worth confirming directly with TEC or a certification consultant whether the newly notified standard supersedes the one your existing certificate references, and whether retesting or a documentation update is required. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: The standards apply with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, i.e., 6 August 2026. Transition Period: There is no provision for any transition period or grace period in this notification. This is generally the case with such standards notifications, which become immediately effective from the date of Gazette Notification. Applicability: This applies only to the three types of equipment mentioned: IoT gateways, FWA CPE and the specified underground telecom cable installation. This will not apply retroactively to other product categories. Action Required by Business: Manufacturers and importers of these three types of equipment should immediately verify their current TEC/MTCTE certificate status with respect to the notified standard numbers and confirm from the test laboratory/TEC whether retesting, submission of a fresh application for certification or just an update on the document mentioning the new standard number is required for future/new applications. Fresh Applications: Any MTCTE application received in these product categories after 6 August 2026 should cite the newly notified standard as the relevant benchmark. Why Was This Implemented? Standards notifications like this one are a routine but structurally important part of how India's telecom certification system stays current with technology and market needs. The broader legal framework under Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 establishes testing and certification mandates for telecom equipment used across Indian networks, with the underlying goal of strengthening security, interoperability, and quality control throughout the sector. The certification framework's core objective is to ensure that telecom equipment and services conform to notified technical and security requirements through a formal conformity assessment process one that supports accountability, user safety, and the reliability of telecom infrastructure at large. The cable standard, TEC 68090:2026, supports consistent quality benchmarks for underground telecom cable infrastructure, a foundational, if less visible, part of network reliability. Underground cables of this construction (solid polythene insulated, fully jelly-filled, polythene sheathed) are widely used for physical protection against moisture and mechanical stress in buried telecom lines. Hence, a current Generic Requirements standard helps ensure a consistent baseline of quality across manufacturers supplying this cable type to network operators and infrastructure projects nationwide. More broadly, keeping TEC standards current also supports India's ease-of-doing-business and interoperability goals; manufacturers benefit from having an unambiguous, up-to-date reference for design and testing, rather than relying on outdated or draft specifications that can create uncertainty during certification. Impact on Businesses Manufacturers (IoT gateways, FWA CPE, telecom cables): Please test your products to comply with the new TEC standard numbers to obtain TEC certification in the future, and update internal quality documents, design validation checklists, and supplier specifications to reference the updated standard. Importers: If you import IoT gateways, FWA CPE, or specific types of cable intended for use in India, you must ensure they conform to TEC standards as part of MTCTE certification to obtain import approval and sell them. Any references to an outdated standard number on import papers may lead to delays. Exporters: Even though the destination country determines export regulations, companies operating in India that export products to other countries may improve their brand image by aligning with current TEC standards, since many Indian companies do business with certain international buyers. Brand Owner / OEM: Even if the product is produced for you by a subcontractor, it must include proper certification referencing the appropriate, up-to-date standard. MSMEs and Startups: Smaller IoT hardware startups and FWA equipment makers, who often operate on tighter timelines and budgets than large OEMs, should factor the cost and lead time of testing against the new standard into their product launch and go-to-market planning, ideally well before a launch date is locked in. Large Enterprises: While larger firms with their own testing facilities or associations with certified laboratories are likely to find it easier to adapt to this change, they must ensure that their certification status is up to date. Telecom Service Providers / Network Operators: Procurement teams sourcing FWA CPE or underground cable for network rollout and expansion projects should confirm that vendor equipment carries certification referencing the currently applicable standard, to avoid procurement or deployment delays. Distributors / Retailers / Traders: Should confirm with their suppliers that stock currently being sold or planned for future orders carries valid, current TEC certification, rather than relying on certificates issued against a superseded standard. Service Providers Installing or Maintaining Equipment: Installation and field service teams working on FWA CPE or IoT gateway deployments should be aware that newly procured units are expected to carry certification to the current standard, which may be relevant during network audits or compliance checks. Although the notification does not impose different financial sanctions on businesses that are not in compliance, they can consult the enforcement provisions in the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the 2025 Rules for sanctions on conducting business with uncertified or non-compliant equipment. The more comprehensive enforcement provisions in the 2025 Rules allow for the issuance of notices to correct non-compliance within a set period, and any further non-compliance may result in suspension of service or seizure of the uncertified equipment. How Businesses Can Approach Compliance? Identify applicability: Confirm whether your product falls under the IoT Gateway, FWA CPE, or the specified underground cable category covered by this notification. Check the current certification status: If you already hold a TEC/MTCTE certificate for the product, verify which standard number it currently references and compare it against TEC 33011:2026, TEC 21141:2026, or TEC 68090:2026, as applicable. Coordinate with an accredited test lab:  testing against the newly notified standard will typically be needed for new certification applications, and may be needed for renewals or updates to existing certificates. TEC designates specific Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) authorised to conduct this testing. Prepare or update your MTCTE application:  submit a fresh application, or update an existing one, through the applicable DoT/TEC online certification portal, referencing the correct standard and attaching the relevant test reports. Review Essential Requirements carefully:  MTCTE certification is assessed against defined Essential Requirements for each product category, covering aspects such as network integrity, user safety, and radio-frequency emission limits where applicable align your product documentation accordingly. Maintain organised documentation:  keep test reports, technical files, design records, and certificates well organised and easily accessible, since these are typically required again at renewal or during compliance audits. Track certification validity and renewal timelines:  Certificates are generally issued for a defined validity period; track renewal dates proactively so certification does not lapse mid-sales cycle. Update supply chain and vendor documentation: If you are a brand owner or distributor relying on third-party manufacturers, request updated compliance documentation from your suppliers that references the current standard. Common mistakes businesses should avoid: mentioning the number of a superseded standard within a new certification request automatically assuming that the validity of an old certificate continues even after a new standard notification for the same product class is issued waiting until right before the launch of the product to carry out tests and not disseminating information about new standards within the organization. Benefits for Businesses Conforming to the new standards has multiple tangible benefits apart from compliance in itself: Continuous access to the market:  The products that comply with the current standard are not subject to detention at customs, sales stoppage, or application denial due to out-of-date information. Lower risk of penalties or enforcement measures:  Complying with the current standard reduces the likelihood of receiving notices, suspensions, or seizures under the certification scheme's general enforcement rules. Stronger buyer and partner confidence:  A current, correctly referenced TEC certificate signals to distributors, network operators, and B2B buyers that your product meets the latest recognised benchmark. Smoother government and enterprise tenders:  Many public-sector and large enterprise procurement processes require current, valid certification as a mandatory qualifying criterion. Operational efficiency:  Aligning early avoids the scramble and rushed testing that often happens when a certification gap is discovered late, close to a shipment or launch deadline. Better long-term product planning:  Having a clear, current technical benchmark makes it easier to plan design validation and quality assurance processes with confidence, rather than working against an outdated or ambiguous reference. Right Decision or Additional Compliance Step? This notification is best understood as a routine technical update rather than a sweeping new regulatory burden. It does not introduce a new licensing regime, a new fee structure, or a fundamentally new compliance process it simply fills in or refreshes the specific test/requirement standard for three equipment categories that were, in principle, already expected to go through certification under the existing MTCTE framework. For companies that are familiar with MTCTE and TEC certification, the only issue addressed by this notification is a technical one: ensuring the correct standard is referenced. This is not an issue that would require much time or restructuring. For newer entrants, particularly IoT hardware startups and FWA equipment manufacturers who may previously have been operating without a clearly defined, up-to-date test benchmark for their category, this notification arguably reduces uncertainty. Having an explicit, current standard to design and test against can make product planning easier and more predictable than operating under an unclear, outdated, or draft requirement, even though it does require upfront testing and documentation. However, the primary issue faced by companies is not the content of the requirement but the timing and awareness of it, to ensure that the update is detected early enough to be incorporated into any certification applications in progress or soon to be submitted. Business Opportunities Created Beyond the immediate compliance task, a clear and current standard can open up practical opportunities for businesses positioned to act on it: Faster, more predictable certification for new product launches- A defined, current standard reduces ambiguity for companies developing new IoT gateway or FWA CPE products, supporting more predictable go-to-market timelines. Stronger positioning in government and infrastructure tenders:  Telecom infrastructure and smart-city projects that require current TEC-certified equipment create demand that compliant manufacturers and suppliers are well placed to capture. Expansion into IoT and fixed wireless hardware manufacturing:  As India's IoT and FWA broadband segments continue to grow, having early, correct certification against the current standard can be a competitive advantage when pitching to network operators and system integrators. Import and distribution opportunities: International manufacturers seeking to enter or expand in the Indian market now have a clear, current benchmark to certify against, which can support faster market entry when handled correctly. Underground cable supply opportunities: Telecom operators and infrastructure contractors expanding wired network capacity will require cable that meets the current Generic Requirements standard, creating a clear specification for cable manufacturers and suppliers to build against. Value in specialised compliance consulting: The recurring need to track, interpret, and act on TEC standard updates across multiple product lines creates ongoing demand for dedicated regulatory compliance support, particularly for manufacturers managing certification across multiple equipment categories simultaneously. Why Choose Corpseed? Keeping track of every TEC standard update, correctly matching it to your specific product category, and managing the full MTCTE application process can be time-consuming for manufacturers and importers focused on building and selling products, not on chasing paperwork or monitoring Gazette notifications. Corpseed's regulatory compliance team tracks these notifications as they are published, helps identify precisely which standard applies to your product based on its technical specifications, and coordinates with accredited testing labs to plan the testing process efficiently. On the documentation side, Corpseed assists with preparing and filing MTCTE applications, organising technical files and test reports, and managing renewals so certificates don't lapse unexpectedly. For businesses managing certification across multiple product lines IoT gateways, FWA CPE, cables, or other MTCTE-covered categories having a single point of coordination for tracking standard updates and managing filings can meaningfully reduce internal time and risk, while keeping the process transparent and predictable from application to approval. Corpseed's Core Message Missing a standard update or filing a certification application under the wrong reference number can quietly translate into real business costs: delayed shipments, products held up at customs, rejected applications, or missed tender eligibility. If your business manufactures or imports IoT gateways, FWA CPE, or underground telecom cables of the type covered here, it is worth confirming today whether your current or planned certification aligns with TEC 33011:2026, TEC 21141:2026, or TEC 68090:2026. Rather than treating this as a routine detail to handle later, address it now while the notification is fresh to reduce the risk of it becoming an urgent, deadline-driven problem down the line. Corpseed's compliance team can conduct a quick applicability check for your specific product, flag exactly which documentation or testing updates are needed, and manage the certification process end-to-end, so your team can stay focused on the product itself. Conclusion This notification updates the technical standards landscape for three telecom equipment categories: IoT gateways, FWA customer premises equipment, and a specific underground telecom cable construction under the framework established by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the 2025 Rules governing standards, conformity assessment, and certification. It takes effect from 6 August 2026, with no separate transition period stated in the notification text. For businesses in this space, the required action is clear: confirm the applicable standard reference for your product, check it against your current certification status, and align your TEC/MTCTE documentation and testing plan accordingly to avoid avoidable delays in sales, imports, or tender eligibility. While this update is administrative in nature rather than a major regulatory overhaul, timely action matters certification gaps are far easier to resolve proactively than after a shipment is held up or an application is rejected. For a quick applicability check on your specific product, or for end-to-end support with TEC standard alignment and MTCTE certification, reach out to Corpseed's compliance team.

Subject

Summary: The Central Government has notified TEC 67010:2026, Generic Requirements for Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) Batteries as a revised standard for telecommunication equipment. The notification has been issued under Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act 2023, read with Rule 5 of the Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025. The revised standard is relevant to manufacturers, importers, suppliers and other businesses dealing with VRLA batteries used in telecom applications. Since these batteries provide backup power to telecom equipment, their performance, safety and reliability are directly linked to network continuity. For businesses, the key question is not simply whether the battery meets the older technical requirements. They need to determine whether their existing product specifications, test reports and compliance documentation remain aligned with TEC 67010:2026 and whether any additional testing or certification action is required. Background and Context TEC 67010:2026 governs telecommunications-related Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) batteries. This new standard incorporates changes from the earlier specification to keep pace with developments in VRLA battery technology. The standard covers requirements relating to: General requirements and construction Electrical and performance characteristics Chemical requirements Safety Environmental conditions Test methods Installation and maintenance information Information relevant to purchasers This update is particularly important for businesses whose VRLA battery products are already being supplied to the telecom sector under an earlier TEC standard. Existing approvals and test reports should be reviewed against the revised requirements rather than being assumed to cover the new standard automatically. Manufacturers, importers and telecom suppliers should now assess their product-specific compliance position, identify testing or documentation gaps and determine the applicable TEC/MTCTE certification action. What Is TEC 67010:2026? TEC 67010:2026 is the revised generic requirement standard for Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) Batteries used in telecommunications. VRLA batteries use an immobilised electrolyte and are designed for applications where reliable standby power is important. The standard addresses several aspects of battery performance and construction rather than focusing on capacity alone. It covers areas such as: General battery requirements Constructional features Electrical characteristics Performance requirements Chemical requirements Safety considerations Environmental requirements Test methods Installation and maintenance information Purchaser-related information For manufacturers, this means compliance needs to be looked at across the product lifecycle. A battery may have satisfactory capacity and still require attention to other technical requirements covered by the standard. This is why companies considering TEC certification services should begin with a product-to-standard gap assessment instead of immediately booking laboratory testing. What Has Changed Under TEC 67010:2026? TEC has revised the requirements covers the technical requirements that manufacturers, testing laboratories and buyers need to consider when assessing these batteries. For businesses, the key areas to review include: Updated Technical Requirements: Existing product specifications should be checked against the requirements prescribed under TEC 67010:2026. Performance and Electrical Parameters: Manufacturers need to verify that the battery's electrical and performance characteristics are supported by the applicable test evidence. Safety Requirements: Battery construction, operation and protection features need to be assessed against the applicable safety requirements. Environmental Performance: Businesses should review whether their existing test evidence adequately covers the environmental requirements applicable to the product. Testing Methodology: Existing test reports should be mapped against the revised test methods to identify where additional testing may be required. Product Documentation: Technical specifications, installation instructions, maintenance information and other supporting documents may need to be updated to reflect the revised requirements. The exact compliance action will depend on the battery model, configuration, existing approval status and available test evidence. Businesses should complete a gap assessment before deciding whether retesting or further certification action is necessary. Why Is the Revised VRLA Standard Important? VRLA batteries are an important part of telecom backup power infrastructure. A failure in the battery system can affect the continuity of telecom equipment during power interruptions. The revised standard therefore has implications beyond laboratory testing. Reliability of Telecom Backup Power Telecom equipment depends on backup batteries when the primary power source is unavailable. Updated performance requirements can help improve the reliability of batteries deployed in telecom networks. Product Quality and Safety A defined technical framework gives manufacturers and buyers clearer benchmarks for evaluating battery construction, performance and safety. Better Procurement Decisions Telecom operators and infrastructure companies can use compliance documentation as part of supplier and product evaluation instead of relying only on commercial specifications. Impact on Existing Products VRLA battery makers must check existing products in relation to TEC 67010:2026. Previous test reports or approvals may need to be checked to see whether they adequately address the revised requirements. Greater Compliance Responsibility for Importers Importers and foreign manufacturers supplying VRLA batteries to India should establish the applicable TEC and MTCTE requirements before treating the product as ready for the Indian telecom market. Who Needs to Review TEC 67010:2026 Compliance? The revised requirements can affect businesses at different points in the telecom battery supply chain. Business Key Compliance Concern VRLA Battery Manufacturers Product design, testing and technical documentation Importers Applicable TEC requirements and certification status Foreign OEMs Indian certification pathway and authorised representative requirements Telecom Power System Manufacturers Compliance of batteries integrated into power systems Telecom Equipment Suppliers Certification status of supplied battery models Telecom Operators Vendor qualification and procurement checks System Integrators Verification of battery compliance before deployment For companies with multiple battery models, a TEC certification consultant can help map each product against the applicable requirements and identify where testing, documentation or certification support is required. Key Compliance Requirements under TEC 67010:2026 Businesses should assess the complete applicable requirements of TEC 67010:2026 instead of checking only the battery capacity or discharge performance. The revised standard covers technical, safety, environmental and testing aspects of VRLA batteries. 1. General and Construction Requirements Manufacturers should review the construction and configuration of the VRLA battery against the applicable requirements, including: Cell and battery construction Materials and components Terminals and connections Battery enclosure and physical arrangement Identification and markings Construction-related safety provisions The product specification and manufacturing documentation should accurately reflect the configuration submitted for assessment. 2. Electrical and Performance Requirements The battery needs to demonstrate the required electrical, and performance characteristics under the applicable test conditions. Businesses should review relevant parameters such as: Capacity and discharge performance Charging characteristics Float operation Voltage behaviour Internal resistance Performance under specified operating conditions 3. Safety Requirements Manufacturers should verify battery construction, protection, operation and safe handling against the applicable safety requirements. 4. Environmental Requirements Businesses should check whether existing test evidence covers the environmental conditions and tests specified under TEC 67010:2026. 5. Testing Requirements The revised standard provides test methods for evaluating relevant characteristics of cells, mono-blocks and batteries. Before approaching a laboratory, businesses should: Identify the tests applicable to the specific product. Map existing reports against the revised requirements. Identify missing or outdated test evidence. Confirm the appropriate testing route. Prepare the required product and technical documentation. This pre-testing review can help avoid unnecessary repeat testing and reduce delays during the certification process. What Should Manufacturers and Importers Do Now? Businesses should treat the notification as a reason to review their current compliance position rather than waiting until a customer or regulator asks for updated documents. Step 1: Identify the Applicable Product Requirements Confirm that the VRLA battery and its intended telecom application fall within the applicable TEC requirements. Step 2: Review Existing Compliance Documents Collect previous TEC approvals, test reports, technical specifications, datasheets and product documentation. Step 3: Conduct a Gap Assessment Compare the existing product and supporting evidence with TEC 67010:2026. Step 4: Address Technical Gaps If the assessment identifies design, performance or safety gaps, make the required corrections before final testing. Step 5: Plan Laboratory Testing Determine which tests require fresh evidence and coordinate the applicable testing with the relevant laboratory. Step 6: Complete TEC/MTCTE Compliance Prepare the application and supporting documents required under the applicable conformity assessment and certification process. Step 7: Maintain Records Keep the final certification documents, test reports and product specifications properly organised. Any future product or manufacturing changes should also be reviewed for their potential impact on compliance. Impact on Businesses The new TEC 67010:2026 standard may have implications for product testing, technical documentation, certification process, and procurement. 1. VRLA Battery Manufacturers Area Impact Product Review Existing battery models should be assessed against TEC 67010:2026. Testing Existing test reports should be checked to identify any testing gaps. Documentation Technical specifications, manuals and supporting documents may need updates. Certification Manufacturers should determine the applicable TEC/MTCTE certification requirements. Product Changes Any design or component changes should be assessed for their compliance impact. 2. Importers and Foreign OEMs Area Impact Market Entry Applicable TEC requirements should be established before supplying products in India. Test Reports Existing international or previous test reports should be mapped against the applicable requirements. Documentation Product and technical information should remain consistent across certification records. Indian Representation Foreign manufacturers should assess whether an Authorised Indian Representative is required. Shipment Planning Certification and compliance requirements should be considered before commercial imports. 3. Telecom Operators and Infrastructure Companies Area Impact Procurement Suppliers should be evaluated for applicable TEC compliance. Vendor Checks Battery models and certification documents should be verified before purchase. Existing Inventory Existing battery models can be reviewed against the revised standard where relevant. Technical Reliability Procurement teams can use compliance evidence as an additional product-quality benchmark. 4. Telecom Power-System Suppliers and Integrators Companies supplying telecom power systems should verify the compliance position of VRLA batteries sourced from third parties. Battery specifications, model numbers, test reports and certification documents should match the products actually supplied and deployed. This is particularly important where a supplier integrates batteries into a larger telecom power solution and relies on third-party manufacturers for the battery component. How Businesses Can Achieve Compliance Companies dealing with VRLA batteries should check their products against TEC 67010:2026 and close any testing, documentation or certification gaps before they create issues during procurement or market access. Step-by-Step Compliance Pathway Identify the Applicable Requirements: Check the TEC requirements that apply to the VRLA battery and its telecom application. Review Existing Documents: Check your latest test reports, product specifications, datasheets, approvals and other technical documents. Conduct a Gap Assessment: Compare existing product evidence with TEC 67010:2026 and identify missing or outdated requirements. Address Product Gaps: Make necessary changes to product design, construction, performance or documentation where required. Complete Required Testing: Arrange applicable testing through the relevant testing laboratory and obtain supporting test evidence. Prepare the Certification Application: Compile the technical documents and test reports required for the applicable TEC/MTCTE process. Respond to Queries: Provide additional documents or clarifications if requested during the assessment or certification process. Maintain Compliance Records: Keep the approval, test reports and product documentation updated and review future product changes for their compliance impact. What Documents Should Businesses Keep Ready? Having the right documents ready can make the certification process more efficient. Depending on the product and applicable process, businesses may need: Product technical specifications Datasheets and product photographs Battery model and rating details Construction or design information Applicable test reports Manufacturing details Installation and maintenance instructions Existing TEC or certification documents Relevant declarations and supporting records The exact documentation should be confirmed against the applicable TEC requirements before submission. Benefits of Complying With TEC 67010:2026 Following TEC 67010:2026 can help businesses meet the applicable requirements and keep their VRLA battery products ready for telecom procurement and supply. Benefit Business Value Regulatory Readiness Helps businesses address applicable TEC and MTCTE requirements. Faster Customer Response Updated test reports and technical documents can be provided when buyers request them. Procurement Eligibility A clear compliance position can support supplier qualification and telecom procurement. Better Product Confidence Testing provides objective evidence of relevant battery performance and safety parameters. Reduced Compliance Delays Identifying documentation and testing gaps early can reduce avoidable rework. Market Credibility Demonstrable compliance can strengthen the manufacturer's position with telecom customers and system integrators. Common Compliance Gaps Businesses Should Watch Businesses often face delays because the product and its documentation are not aligned. Some common areas to check include: Old Test Reports: Existing reports may not cover every requirement under the revised standard. Product-Document Mismatch: Model numbers, ratings or specifications may differ across the product, test report and application. Incomplete Technical Files: Missing specifications or supporting documents can delay the certification process. Unassessed Product Changes: Changes in components, construction or manufacturing can affect the compliance position. Unclear Testing Scope: Starting laboratory testing without first identifying the applicable requirements can result in unnecessary testing or rework. What Happens If Businesses Do Not Review Their Compliance? For manufacturers and importers, overlooking the revised requirements can create practical problems during certification, customer qualification or procurement. Potential issues include: Delays in certification or approval Additional testing and documentation costs Difficulty responding to customer compliance queries Problems during supplier qualification Delays in launching or supplying updated battery models Greater risk of non-compliance due to outdated technical records The impact will depend on the product, applicable regulatory requirements and its existing certification position. Businesses should assess their individual position rather than assuming that every existing VRLA battery approval is affected in the same way. What Businesses Should Do Next? Businesses dealing with VRLA batteries should review their existing products, test reports and certification documents against TEC 67010:2026. Identify any testing or documentation gaps, address them early and confirm the applicable TEC/MTCTE compliance requirements before supplying or procuring the affected products. Need help assessing your VRLA battery compliance? Connect with Corpseed's TEC certification experts for practical support. Corpseed TEC Certification and Compliance Support For VRLA battery manufacturers, importers and telecom suppliers, understanding TEC 67010:2026 is only the first step. The next challenge is identifying the applicable requirements, checking existing test evidence and completing the right certification process without unnecessary delays. Corpseed can support businesses with: Service Support Offered TEC Certification Consultant Assess the applicable TEC requirements for VRLA battery products. TEC Compliance Gap Assessment Review existing specifications, test reports and documents against TEC 67010:2026. TEC Testing Support Help identify applicable testing requirements and coordinate the testing process. MTCTE Certification Services Support the applicable certification application, documentation and regulatory process. TEC Documentation Support Assist with organising technical documents, reports and supporting records. Importer & OEM Compliance Help foreign manufacturers and importers understand their India-specific compliance requirements. Existing Approval Review Assess earlier approvals and test reports to identify potential gaps under the revised standard. Key Takeaways TEC 67010:2026 revises the generic requirements for VRLA batteries used in telecommunications. Manufacturers and importers should review existing products, test reports and technical documentation against the revised standard. Existing approvals should be assessed to determine whether additional testing, documentation or certification action is required. Telecom operators and procurement teams should verify the compliance status of VRLA battery suppliers and products. Early TEC compliance assessment can help reduce testing delays, documentation gaps and avoidable rework. Businesses requiring support can work with a TEC certification consultant for gap assessment, testing, documentation and applicable MTCTE certification.