The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has urged Navi Mumbai International Airport to ensure compliance with Right of Way (RoW) provisions under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and allow telecom operators to deploy their own network infrastructure at the Navi Mumbai International Airport.
In a February 16 letter to Adani Airport Holdings Ltd, the DoT said NMIA qualifies as a ‘public entity’ under the Telecom Act, 2023, and therefore must allow carriers to deploy the network.
Statutory Obligation
DoT told AAHL that the Telecommunications Act, 2023, read with the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024, creates a statutory framework for RoW permissions for “facility providers,” including licensed TSPs, to establish, operate and maintain telecom networks.
The intervention from the telecom department has come at a time when passengers at the airport have been complaining about the absence of mobile network from private telecom operators. Telcos alleged that the airport operator asked them to utilise its own exclusive in-building telecom network at unreasonably high charges.
In the letter, DoT “clarified” that Navi Mumbai airport qualifies as a “public entity” for the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the rules framed under it—an interpretation that, in DoT’s view, brings the airport’s internal permissions regime for telecom infrastructure under statutory RoW obligations.
The Telecommunications Act, 2023 defines “public entity” to include not only governments and government-created bodies, but also “any non-government entity vested with the ownership, control or management of any public facility” if notified by the Central government.
The DoT’s letter stopped short of specifying a pricing remedy, but explicitly asked AAHL to “ensure compliance” with the Act and the RoW Rules while processing RoW applications “within your premises,” and to facilitate telecom infrastructure establishment “in accordance with the statutory framework.”
The department’s letter underscored that this framework requires RoW applications to be processed in a non-discriminatory, fair and transparent manner, within prescribed timelines and conditions.
Revenue Model vs. Public Service
Section 11 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 sets out that a facility provider may apply to a public entity for RoW over public property, and that permissions are to be granted expeditiously within timelines to be prescribed, with any rejection to be based on reasonable grounds recorded in writing.
DoT said it had received a representation from the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) on December 30, 2025, about “difficulties” faced by licensed telecom service providers (TSPs) at NMIA.
The representation, the DoT noted, alleged that RoW permissions were not being granted and that telcos were instead being required to use an “exclusive in-building telecom network” at charges the industry body described as unreasonably high.
COAI’s complaint has framed the issue as both an RoW access dispute and a competition and pricing concern inside a “public” airport facility. Telecom operators allege that the airport operator is seeking to charge them recurring fees at levels far exceeding what is permissible under the Right of Way Rules. These charges, according to the telcos, go well beyond administrative or restoration costs, which are the only charges allowed under the RoW framework.
In its letter to the DoT, COAI said member operators such as Bharti Airtel, Reliance Jio and Vodafone Idea had approached NMIAL for approvals to deploy their own networks, including in-building solutions (IBS) to deliver 4G and 5G coverage across terminals. COAI alleged NMIAL declined permissions and directed operators to use a network deployed by the airport operator, with charges cited at about Rs 92 lakh per month per operator—around Rs 44 crore a year if applied to four operators.
Telcos argue that being compelled to use a centrally controlled or airport-owned network exposes them to arbitrarily high and commercially unviable fees, effectively converting a statutory facilitation process into a revenue-generating model for the infrastructure owner. Similar concerns are raised in the Mumbai metro context, where third-party vendors are alleged to impose inflated charges and high rental costs.