The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), at the beginning of the month, issued an advisory guideline to all state governments over the issuing of clearance for installation of mobile towers. The move will rekindle the debate regarding health hazards of mobile towers and also restart the tussle between the local governing bodies and the mobile service providers.
As of May 2013, of the 921 million connections in the country, 891 million are wireless, which makes for about 96 per cent of the telephone connections.
DoT, on the grounds that the Indian telecom sector has witnessed phenomenal growth — and mobile telephony in particular — decided to eliminate the requirement of multiple clearance for mobile network service providers and facilitate a single window clearance system. The Cellular Operators Association Of India (COAI) has obviously welcomed the guidelines stating that it “will serve well in eradicating the confusion/inconsistencies lying with various local and state-level authorities.”
Broad guidelines for issuance of clearance for installation of cellphone towers were issued first in August 2012, and later modified in March earlier this year. Subsequently, on the basis of feedback received after deliberations with the state government officials and various stakeholders in April and further consultations thereafter, the guidelines have been finalised for the state governments.
The guidelines encourage a nominal one-time fee, single window clearance, and electricity connection on priority for mobile towers. The guidelines, however, do not suggest any exclusion area where towers may not be installed or located, which although welcomed by the COAI, has left mobile tower grievance activists seething.
“We are working closely with the DoT to ensure that all safety norms are made universal, and fear in the public about the mobile towers is taken care of,” said Rajan S. Mathews, director general, COAI. The finalisation of the guidelines for installation of telecom towers and establishment of a portal that will indicate all emission levels of every antennae will also provide comfort to citizens about the safety of the towers, Mr Mathews pointed out.
However, a palpably irked Milind Bambalkar of Tower Grievance Forum said, “DoT cannot run this country and COAI cannot go on over-installing towers wherever they want. They cannot do away with the local body’s permission like Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in Mumbai. It is unconstitutional.”
One of the main bone of contention lies with the implementation of the guidelines on Electromagnetic field (EMF) aspects which state that on self-certificates submitted by the telecom service providers, an acknowledgement issued by the DoT’s TERM Cell will be considered acceptable and sufficient. This mainly implies that the local body will have no say in withholding installation on grounds of radiation.
Ironically, the ministry of communication and IT, DoT, WPC Wing, SACFA sect, in an RTI reply to Mr Bambalkar dated July 24, 2013 had stated, “Before installation of tower, the service provider has to obtain necessary clearances from the concerned local authorities”; this was merely four days before the DoT issued advisory.