Tag Archive for: RBI

• Harshita Malik | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has mandated the use of the 1600-series numbering for service and transactional voice calls by entities regulated by RBI (including NBFCs), SEBI, and PFRDA, to curb financial frauds through mis-selling and unauthorised communications. The Reserve Bank of India has aligned with this via a notification dated January 17, 2025, titled Prevention of financial frauds perpetrated using voice calls and SMS – Regulatory prescriptions and Institutional Safeguards (‘Circular’), requiring NBFCs to use ‘1600xx’ series for such calls to existing or prospective customers. Considering that the 1600 series numbers had been mandated by TRAI to be adopted within 1st March, 2026 for NBFCs having asset size less than Rs. 5000 crore and 1st January 2026 for NBFCs having asset size more than Rs. 5000 crore, it becomes important to understand whether all NBFCs are required to adopt this or the adoption is activity specific. In this article we discuss the implementation and adoption of the 1600 number series.

Objective

The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018 (‘TCCCPR’) was brought in with the purpose of curbing unsolicited commercial communications and towards ensuring that all customer communications are made through verified and approved numbers. Pursuant to this TRAI brought in the Notification to complement its earlier issued notification dated 23 December, 2024, for government and entities in the BFSI sector (including NBFCs), suggesting a phased-wise adoption plan for using the 1600 series numbers. Further, TRAI also clarified in its Notification that adoption of 1600 series by BFSI entities will:

“(a) be a major tool to curb promotional calls made in the guise of service and transactional calls, which often result in spam and potential scams; and; 

(b) provide BFSI entities a distinct identity segregating them from other callers and will also enable consumers to make informed decisions regarding call acceptance;”

Pursuant to the TRAI notification on phase-wise adoption of 1600-series by BFSI sector entities, regulated by RBI, SEBI and PFRDA (‘Notification’), the RBI on 17 January, 2025 mandated all NBFCs (including HFCs) to use the ‘1600xx’ numbering series for the purpose of making any transaction/service calls. Further, under the Circular, the RBI also clarified that the use of 1600 series numbers would help in curbing online and other frauds for the BFSI customers.

Compliance Requirement

The requirement towards adoption of the 1600 number series for making transactional and service calls stems from the requirement of Regulation 3 of the TCCCPR which states that:

“Commercial communications through network of Access Providers.- 

(1) Every Access Provider shall ensure that any commercial communication using its network takes place only using registered headers or the number resources allotted to the Senders from special series assigned for the purpose of commercial communication.

(2) No Sender, who is not registered with any Access Provider for the purpose of sending commercial communications under these regulations, shall make any commercial communication, and in case, any such Sender sends commercial communication, all the telecom resources of such Sender may be put under suspension or may also be disconnected as provided under these regulations” 

Further the term “commercial communication” has been defined under Regulation 2(i) of the TCCCPR and is defined as:

“means any voice call or message using telecommunication services, where the primary purpose is to inform about or advertise or solicit business for 

(A) goods or services; or 

(B) a supplier or prospective supplier of offered goods or services; or 

(C) a business or investment opportunity; or 

(D) a provider or prospective provider of such an opportunity; 

Explanation: 

For the purposes of this regulation it is immaterial whether the goods, services, land or opportunity referred to in the content of the communication exist(s), is/are lawful, or otherwise. Further, the purpose or intent of the communication may be inferred from: 

(A) The content of the communication in the message or voice call 

(B) The manner in which the content of message or voice call is presented 

(C) The content in the communication during call back to phone numbers presented or referred to in the content of message or voice call; or the content presented at the web links included in such communication.”

Hence “Service Call” as defined under Regulation 2(bh) of the TCCCPR falls under the definition of commercial communication.

Do all NBFCs need to comply?

The above obligation under Regulation 3 of TCCCPR applies only to entities acting as “senders” who initiate or cause such commercial communications using telecommunication services, regulated by TRAI, to a “customer”. This suggests that entities which:

1. do not have any customer outreach or customer interface, or
2. have customer outreach or customer interface functions; however, do not use any calling service regulated by TRAI for communicating with the customers

would not qualify as “Senders” under the TCCCPR. Consequently, the mandate requiring the use of the 1600 series would not be applicable to such entities in practice.

The core intent of the RBI and TRAI is fraud prevention through identification of legitimate BFSI transactional calls. While the mandates as stated in the Circular encompasses all NBFCs regulated by the RBI to adopt the 1600 series, regardless of the asset-size or activity, regulatory compliance is assessed on substance over form, that is to say, the obligation to adopt 1600 series comes into picture only when an NBFC proposes to engage in (or causes) servicing/transactional voice calls or SMS with its customers.

NBFCs with zero history of such communications or NBFCs who are not intending to engage in such communications utilizing the telecommunication service regulated by TRAI, pose no fraud vector through the usage of such communication channels and thus have no practical compliance burden. Therefore for such NBFCs, proactive adoption is neither required nor operationally relevant until customer-facing communications commence or the NBFCs wish to communicate with the customers, utilizing the telecommunication services regulated by TRAI.

Does this compliance mandate extend to transactions with group entities?

The requirement relating to the use of the 1600 series numbering framework under the TCCCPR must be interpreted in light of the regulatory purpose underlying the framework introduced by TRAI. The 1600 series numbering framework has been introduced primarily to enable recipients of service and transactional voice calls to distinguish legitimate communications from telemarketing calls and to mitigate risks associated with unsolicited commercial communications and telemarketing-related frauds. In the context of intra-group lending arrangements, service-related communications are undertaken pursuant to an existing commercial relationship between entities forming part of the same corporate group. Such communications are typically operational or administrative in nature, including communications relating to servicing, monitoring or administration of an existing lending facility. These communications arise from pre-existing contractual arrangements and are not directed towards outreach or solicitation of customers or members of the public.

It is also relevant to note that the concept of “customer interaction” in financial sector regulation is generally understood to refer to engagement with external counterparties in the ordinary course of a regulated entity’s business. Where the interaction is confined to entities within the same corporate group, particularly where there is overlap in shareholding, management or control, the relationship is fundamentally different from a typical lender-customer relationship involving members of the public. Such intra-group arrangements are internal or strategic in nature and do not involve the kind of public-facing engagement that ordinarily triggers consumer protection considerations.

Further, intra-group lending arrangements are typically bespoke and undertaken based on the specific funding requirements of the relevant group entity, rather than pursuant to standardized loan products offered to the market. The terms of such transactions are usually determined on a bilateral basis and may be subject to internal governance processes, including board-level or audit committee/credit committee for related party transactions, oversight applicable to related party transactions. Accordingly, the information asymmetry and imbalance of bargaining power that consumer-protection frameworks seek to address are generally absent in such arrangements.

In addition, communications between group entities are ordinarily carried out through established internal or pre-identified channels, given the ongoing commercial relationship and the shared governance structure within the corporate group. Consequently, the risk of telemarketing-related frauds or unsolicited commercial communications, one of the principal concerns that the 1600 series framework seeks to address, is significantly weakened in the case of intra-group interactions.

In light of the above, service-related communications undertaken by an NBFC with a group entity in connection with an existing intra-group lending arrangement may not ordinarily invoke the regulatory concerns that the 1600 series framework is intended to address. Hence, where loans are provided to group entities, for the purpose of engaging in service calls the requirement of adoption of 1600 series numbers may not be required.

To further mitigate the risk, if any, which may arise during the above transactional communications, BFSI sector entities may send all transactional and service-related messages to group entities (or other third-party borrowers) via official email IDs. This approach further ensures non-applicability of the 1600-series requirements under TCCCPR, as email communications operate outside TRAI-regulated telecom networks for voice calls and SMS. Official emails provide a verifiable, auditable trail-aligned with RBI’s emphasis on digital record-keeping—while minimizing fraud risks through domain-based authentication and internal governance protocols for related-party interactions.

Does the same logic apply to Wholesale/Non-retail Lending outside the group?

The rationale exempting intra-group transactions from the 1600-series requirement extends analogously to wholesale or non-retail lending to external corporate borrowers, where service and transactional communications occur through pre-identified single points of contact (SPOCs). Loan agreements in such arrangements explicitly designate SPOCs on both lender and borrower sides, establishing a closed-loop communication channel that eliminates the anonymity exploited by fraudsters in retail contexts.

This structure inherently mitigates the spam and scam risks targeted by TRAI/RBI mandates, as borrowers rely on contractual contact details rather than unverified calls. Consequently, imposing the 1600-series here would serve little practical purpose, as the pre-existing verification framework under commercial contracts aligns with the substance of TCCCPR’s fraud-prevention objectives. NBFCs engaged solely in such lending face no operational need for 1600 numbers unless expanding into public-facing retail activities.

That said, per the strict wording of the TCCCPR Regulations, “service calls” qualify as commercial communications under Regulation 2(bh) when made via regulated telecom networks, requiring use of registered headers or special series like 1600xx under Regulation 3 . Thus, while the logic may not align perfectly with fraud-prevention intent in closed SPOC setups, BFSI sector entities must comply to avoid penalties such as telecom resource suspension-prioritising form alongside substance.

Conclusion

While the 1600-series mandate imposes a uniform compliance layer on BFSI sector entities to combat fraud via identifiable transactional calls, its practical applicability hinges on actual customer-facing communications under TCCCPR. Entities without retail outreach or public interfaces bear no operational burden, as the regulation targets external “senders” exploiting telecom networks for solicitation or service interactions.

Intra-group transactions further fall outside this scope, given their internal, contractual nature devoid of consumer protection risks like information asymmetry or spam.  Adoption also remains unnecessary for non-communicating entities, preserving regulatory substance over form.