IMEI Tampering Draws Three-Year Jail Under Telecom Act, 2023

The correct answer is fifteen digits. The International Mobile Equipment Identity is described as a unique number of that length which identifies a mobile device on a telecom network, and the first eight of those digits make up the Type Allocation Code that identifies the model or type of the handset. Ten digits is wrong; that is the length of a mobile telephone number in India and the two are often confused, but a telephone number belongs to the connection while this number belongs to the device. Twelve digits is wrong as well and matches no identifier described in the backgrounder. Eighteen digits is wrong because it overstates the length, and no identifier of that size is named. Candidates should also remember the way to read one off a handset, which is by dialling the short code given in the release, and that a dual-SIM phone normally carries two such numbers, one for each slot.

The correct answer is the GSMA, the Global System for Mobile Communications Association. The backgrounder says it oversees the worldwide allocation of the Type Allocation Code, handing codes to manufacturers and brand owners, who then assign unique device identities to individual handsets. TRAI is wrong, because the regulator appears in the release only in connection with the rule restricting messaging for a day after a re-issued SIM is activated, not with code allocation. The Department of Telecommunications is wrong as well; it advises citizens on what to avoid and runs the registration and verification machinery in India, but the global code pool is not its to allocate. The International Telecommunication Union is wrong because the release does not assign it this role. A useful chain to memorise is that the association allocates the code, the manufacturer assigns the full identity, and the Indian portals then register it.

The correct answer is imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to fifty lakh rupees, or both. The prohibition itself sits in Section 42(3)(c) of the Act, which bars tampering with telecommunication identifiers, while the neighbouring clause covers obtaining SIMs or identifiers through fraud, cheating or impersonation. The first option is wrong because it understates both the jail term and the maximum fine laid down. The third option is wrong because the statute plainly provides for imprisonment as well as a fine, and indeed allows both together. The fourth option is wrong on two counts: it stretches the term of imprisonment beyond what the Act prescribes and it wrongly removes the fine. Two further points are worth carrying: such offences are cognizable and non-bailable under Section 42(7), and under Section 42(6) a person who abets or promotes the offence is liable to the same punishment as the offender.