ITV

Category: High Court

  • TV content: Madras HC seeks Centre’s clarification on regulatory mechanism

    TV content: Madras HC seeks Centre’s clarification on regulatory mechanism

    NEW DELHI: Joining issues with a petition presently being heard by the Supreme Court on a similar matter, the Madras High Court yesterday directed the federal government to clarify on the existing regulatory setup governing contents aired by television channels in India.

    The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sunder gave this direction to assistant solicitor general Su Srinivasan, who appeared for the central government, during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop telecast of Tamil reality show ‘Bigg Boss’, hosted by actor Kamal Haasan on Vijay TV, part of Star India, according to a report filed by PTI from Chennai.

    The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 18, 2017.

    Earlier, senior counsel P S Raman, who appeared on behalf of the actor and anchor of the TV show, submitted that there were two bodies to regulate the channels. One was the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC), a self-regulatory body headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and the other was ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB), the PTI report quoted Raman as telling the local high court.

    BCCC is a self-regulatory body set up by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, an industry organisation that has a large number of TV channels as its members. Though there’s no formal content regulatory body in India on the lines of American FCC or the UK’s Ofcom or Singapore’s MDA, IBF’s self regulatory body takes up complaints relating to TV content. Separately, the content code, part of India’s Cable TV Act (enforced by MIB) outlines broad guidelines for TV content.

    The PTI report stated that petitioner Saravanan has alleged that in the reality show Haasan played with emotions and behaviour of female contestants, which he termed vulgar and obscene. He further submitted that to protect Tamil culture and tradition and in the interest and welfare of the general public, the telecast of the show must be stalled immediately.

    “The dress code and behaviour of female contestants on the show are very vulgar and obscene making my family members and me uncomfortable in watching the programme. Also, the reference to ‘cheri’ (slum) behavior, made by a participant to describe the behaviour of another contestant, greatly hurt downtrodden people,” the petitioner said.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is hearing a similar case and has enquired from the central government whether it has a proper mechanism in place to regulate TV content.

    Outgoing film certification (CBFC) chief Pahlaj Nihalani, dubbed nationalist and ultra-conservative by a section of content producers and audience alike, in a media interview had urged the government to extend CBFC’s jurisdiction to oversee television shows too.

    ALSO READ:

    Govt formalising TV & radio complaints’ redressal mechanism

    SC to MIB: Get mechanism to deal with complaints on TV, radio shows

    Awarded adman Prasoon Joshi is new CBFC chief, Pahlaj Nihalani exits

  • Kal Cables can continue analogue transmission, says Madras High Court

    Kal Cables can continue analogue transmission, says Madras High Court

    NEW DELHI: In a clear set-back to the ministry of information and broadcasting, digitization has once again been pushed back in Tamil Nadu where it had been put on hold from Phase I of Digital Addressable System following a court order.

    Kal Cables, a subsidiary of the Sun TV Network, got a reprieve from going digital following an interim injunction by the Madras High Court against a Central government order directing all multi-system operators (MSOs) to switch to digital mode.

    Kal Cables was allowed to transmit signals using analogue mode by Justice M Duraiswamy after its counsel and senior advocate A R L Sundaresan argued that state-run Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd had been granted an extension.

    Arasu was granted three months to switch over to the DAS and has since been granted another extension till 17 August 2017.

    All MSOs were supposed to switch to digital transmission by March 31.

    Kal Cables said preferential treatment extended to Arasu by the ministry was arbitrary.

    The matter was put off for further hearing for a week as Additional Solicitor General G. Rajagopalan requested time.

  • Orders reserved by Madras HC on TRAI jurisdiction case

    Orders reserved by Madras HC on TRAI jurisdiction case

    NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court today reserved orders on the Star India-Vijay TV challenge to the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to issue tariff orders.

    The court received a compliance report from its registry that all parties had filed their written submissions.

    Earlier last week, the Authority had said it would file its written submissions only after scrutinizing those of the broadcasters, after which the broadcasters had been directed to serve their submissions to TRAI the same day (27 July) .

    Thus submissions have been filed by the petitioners Star India and Vijay TV, respondent TRAI, and intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) and Videocon d2h.

    Arguments on the hearing which commenced late last month had concluded on 19 July and all parties had been asked to file written submissions.

    Star India and Vijay TV’s challenge to the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders is on the ground that content comes under the Copyright Act.

    In the hearing on 19 July 2017, the Court had refused to accept an affidavit by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation  (IBF).

    Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced hearing only in the last week of June.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court. (However, the Tariff order comes into effect only from 2 September 2017.)

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:

    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03_mar_2917.pdf 

    Also Read:

    Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    TRAI jurisdiction case listed for 31 July to peruse compliance report

  • Star India-TRAI jurisdiction case to come up in Madras HC today

    Star India-TRAI jurisdiction case to come up in Madras HC today

    NEW DELHI: The Star India-Vijay TV case challenging the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is scheduled to come up for hearing in the Madras High Court today after TRAI was to file its written submission after scrutinising those of the broadcasters.

    Counsel for both the broadcasters had objected to the statement by the TRAI counsel P Wilson refusing to file and serve written submissions. After hearing all sides, the bench had directed the broadcasters to serve their submissions by 5 pm on 27 July to TRAI and the interveners All India Digital Cable Federation and Videocon d2h.

    It asked TRAI to serve its submissions on the other parties the next day — 28 July. Thereafter, the court was on Monday scheduled to take note of the compliance of submission of the written statements from the court registry. Meanwhile, both interveners filed their submissions in Court.

    Arguments had concluded in the matter on 19 July and the matter had been posted for today for filing of written submissions. Star India and Vijay TV’s challenge to the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders is on the ground that content comes under the Copyright Act.

    In the hearing on 19 July 2017, the Court had refused to accept an affidavit by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation. Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced hearing only in the last week of June.

    ALSO READ :

    TRAI tariff: AIDCF impleads in Tata Sky, Airtel Digital pleas

    Madras HC to hear Star India’s rejoinder in TRAI challenge today

    TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC

    Hearing to end next week in Madras HC on Star India challenge to TRAI Tariff order

  • No BRR implication on b’caster & DPO link flawed: Vijay TV, IBF affidavit rejected

    No BRR implication on b’caster & DPO link flawed: Vijay TV, IBF affidavit rejected

    NEW DELHI: Even as arguments concluded in the Star India and Vijay TV case challenging the jurisdiction of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, the Madras High Court directed all parties to submit written statements by 27 July 2017.

    The Court refused to accept an affidavit by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation which had neither a notary stamp nor a date. Earlier, in his arguments, TRAI counsel Saket Singh had said that IBF represented a mere 20 per cent of the broadcasters in the country. In fact, the bench expressed its annoyance at the manner in which the affidavit had been presented.

    If the written submissions are accepted by the court, it will reserve its judgment in the matter.

    Vijay TV counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while presenting his rejoinder, also furnished a number of new arguments, and therefore the court wanted all these to be put into written submissions. Singhvi said that the dichotomy between copyright works and their compilations were false, and TRAIs assertion that a TV channel was a separate product was not ‘protectable.’ He said that public interest would not confer non-existent jurisdiction on TRAI.

    In any event, TRAI will continue to regulate carriage and the broadcasters business.

    Singhvi said that TRAI seemed to assert that broadcast reproduction rights did not have had anything to do with a channel but was merely a compilation of copyright works. That understanding was flawed. The impression that TRAI was not regulating content but only the manner of offering of the TV channel was completely flawed since price, manner of offering and market place were inextricably linked.

    Singhvi contended that TRAI was indulging in disguised encroachment. It might have jurisdiction on transmission but cannot extend to other sectors.

    He said the reliance on the 2009 Delhi HC judgement of Star vs Trai was completely misleading. The principles of ‘res judicata’ and ‘constructive res judicata’ would not confer jurisdiction on TRAI  to regulate content.

    In any event, the issue raised in the instant writ had never been dealt before any court/ tribunal, thus the earlier judgements could not operate as res judicata / constructive res judicata. Similarly, the reliance on NSTPL judgment was completely misplaced. He said acquiescence / estoppel / concession in law was not binding.

    TRAI’s reliance on TRAI vs BSNL decision of TDSAT to assert Star was stopped from challenging the regulations was completely misleading.

    On his points as rejoinder, he said TRAI and intervenors suggestion that broadcast came into existence only after TV channel signal reaches the set-top box and thus there was no BRR (broadcast reproduction right) implication in the arrangement between the broadcaster and the DPO was completely flawed.

    Broadcast comes into existence from the moment the TV channel is uplinked.

    TRAI’s argument that the Copyright Act only protects individual programmes as works, and a TV channel being a ‘distinct and different product’ is not protected as a whole under the Act is completely flawed, he said, adding that a TV channel is protected as a broadcast  under the Act. The owner of TV channel is granted a substantive right known as the BRR.

    The distinction between driver/ non- driver and popular/ non popular channel- while the impinged regulation and Tariff order claim to be content agnostic. TRAI has taken every effort to rely on content to justify and defend them.

    TRAI does not have the power to administer the programme code and advertising code under the Cable Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. TRAI’s role as authority under that Act is very limited. It is recognised as an authority only for the limited period of digitisation as governed under section 4A.

    The impunged regulation and Tariff directly affects subscription and advertisement revenue of broadcaster which in turn impacts the expenses that can go into curating and programming of Tv channel which in turn directly affects the price at which programmes can be acquired which is nothing but control of pricing of copyright works and content.

    Sampling of content is the norm. Bundling of content is beneficial to promote public interest. TRAI’s impugned regulations will impact the diversity and Prularity of views.

    Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:

    AlsO Read :

    TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC

    Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed

     

  • TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India can only regulate the means of transmission and not take any decisions like pricing about the content, Star India contended today.

    In his rejoinder in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, Star India counsel P Chidambaram said TRAI was free to regulate the carriage side of broadcasting right up to the consumer.

    Chidambaram was speaking after the arguments by TRAI counsel Saket Singh, and intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation counsel A R L Sundaresan and Videocon d2h counsel Vijay Raman.

    Chidambaram said that in theory, TRAI could not price even the movie channels.

    He said that the petitioners were not licencees under Section 2(1)(e) if the TRAI Act.

    Responding to points made by TRAI, he said the reliance to the 2004 judgment pf the Delhi High Court in the Star India vs TRAI case was misplaced. This was because the principles of res judicata estoppel and acquiescence do not apply to the present case since the present petition is challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI itself. Even that judgement had only directed TRAI to freeze and not to fix prices, he contended.  

    He also said that TRAI was fixing prices genre-wise in the new tariff order and not channel wise.

    While Chidambaram referred to the tariff orders of 2004 and 2007, he refrained from speaking about the tariff orders of 2012 and 2014.

    He contended that once uplinked, broadcasting was complete and TRAI did not come into the picture in broadcast re-production rights.

    Following the completion of his rejoinder, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi will present his rejoinder on behalf of Vijay TV. It is expected that the judges may reserve orders tomorrow.

    Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:

    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…

    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf

    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Also Read: Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed

     

  • Madras HC to hear Star India’s rejoinder in TRAI challenge today

    NEW DELHI: Following the completion of arguments of the All-India Digital Cable Federation and Videocon d2h, the Madras High Court will today commence hearing a rejoinder by the petitioners — Star India and Vijay TV.

    Concluding his arguments in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that the subject of content fell under the Copyright Act, counsel for AIDCF A R L Sundaresan explained how the Telecom Regulatory and Copyright Law do not infringe upon each other. AIDCF had intervened in the matter.

    AIDCF also explained the flow of revenue and the breakup, and what is carriage, network capacity fee, distribution fee etc. It told the court how the money would be divided amongst different stakeholders including broadcasters under the new tariff regulations. The concept of carriage fee, distribution fee and network capacity fees were explained with help of charts.

    Videoco d2h counsel Vijay Raman said the petition militates against the right of stakeholders to do business as guaranteed in Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. The new tariff order had asked broadcasters to declare their minimum retail price per channel to consumers and give ‘a la carte’ price for pay channels. This would give greater choice to the consumer.

    Earlier last week, TRAI counsel Saket Singh had said that, prior to the tariff order, the broadcaster would sell distribution right to the multi-system operators at wholesale price level, and MSOs would accordingly sell to the consumers. Thus, the consumer had no direct link with the pricing.

    The new tariff had taken away the power of distributors in terms of pricing and that has been given to the broadcaster. Hence, they are the master of their channel and can price the consumer, accordingly. The consumer also got the right to refuse to pay for channels he did not watch. Singh also explained the concept of carriage fee.

    Although the Supreme Court had, in early May, while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the high court had commenced the hearing in the last week of June. The hearing had commenced with the pleadings of counsel for the petitioners.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.

    In the hearing in April-end, it had said Section 3 of the Tariff order and all other consequences of such implementation/enforcement would be subject to the outcome of the main petition.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:
    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Also Read :Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed

  • Hearing to end next week in Madras HC on Star India challenge to TRAI Tariff order

    NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court was today told by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India counsel Saket Singh the reasons for moving from analogue to digital and the necessity of the new tariff order.

    Concluding his arguments in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, Singh said digital addressable system had led to greater transparency leading to the subscriber base going up, which led to higher advertising revenue.

    While adjourning the matter for 17 July, the Court indicated that arguments will commence on behalf of intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation and Videcon d2h. This will be followed by rejoiner arguments by the petitioners, after which the court will reserve its orders.

    Singh said the aim was to create level playing field for rates to distributor platforms  and give an effective and informed choice to the consumer.

    The new tariff had asked broadcasters to declare their minimum retail price per channel to consumers and give a la carte price for pay channels. This would give greater cChoice to consumer.

    The bench asked why HD and SD cHannels could not be regulated in the same bouquet. Singh also wondered why broadcasters are using this as one of the contentions as they themselves during the consultation process wanted HD and SD to be separated. They had also said so in their responses to the consultation paper on the subject.He said that the channels at that stage had only wanted the free-to-air and pay channels to be in separate boiuquets.

    Singh showed to the court the broadcasters comments during consultation process.

    He said prior to the tariff order, broadcaster would sell distribution right to multi-system ioperators at wholesale prices level and MSOs would accordingly sell to the consumers. Thus the consumer had no direct link to pricing.

    The new tariff had taken away the power of distributors in terms of pricing and that has been given to the broadcaster. Hence they are the master of their channel and can price the consumer accordingly.

    The consumer also got the right to refuse to pay for channels he did not watch. Singh also explained the concept of carriage fee.

    Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.

    The hearing had commenced with the pleadings of counsel for the petitioners.

    Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.

    In the hearing in April-end, it had said Section 3 of the Tariff order and all other consequences of such implementation/enforcement would be subject to the outcome of the main petition.

    Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.

    The orders can be seen at:
    http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
    http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…

    Also Read

    Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)

    Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed
     

  • Delhi HC rules in favour of Sun TV chief Maran

    MUMBAI: In a civil suit filed by south Indian media baron and Sun Group chief Kalanithi Maran and his airline firm Kal Airways, the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea of SpiceJet against a single-judge order that directed it to deposit Rs 579 crore in relation to a share transfer conflict. Sources told Financial Express that SpiceJet will move the Supreme Court against the HC order.

    The petitioner had sought issuance of stock warrants in SpiceJet to them as per a sale purchase agreement (SPA) of 2015 which had led to the transfer of ownership of the budget carrier to SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh. The single bench’s order had been pronounced last year on the ivil suit filed by Maran and Kal Airways, the erstwhile owner of SpiceJet, PTI reported.

    The high court on Monday asked SpiceJet to deposit in court a part of the amount in the form of bank guarantee by July-end, and the remainder to be paid in cash by August end.

    Maran and Kal had charged that despite giving Rs 579 crore to SpiceJet, the carrier had failed to issue them the warrants or allot tranche one and two of Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares and that the funds were not utilised for paying statutory dues owing to which they were also facing prosecution.

    Singh had co-founded SpiceJet in 2005, but sold his majority stake to Maran for Rs 750 crore in 2010. But, when the carrier ran into trouble, Singh came on board by acquiring 58 per cent stake from Marans in January 2015.

    A division bench headed by justice S Ravindra Bhat stated: “Although we do not find merit in the appeal and have dismissed it, we have passed an order modifying the impugned order,” adding “there is nothing worthwhile” in the airline’s plea to show its finances were precarious or that its cash position was so stretched that it cannot comply with a single-judge order to deposit the amount. “There is neither reference to any figure or amount, nor reliance on any balance sheet, nor even the income and expenditure statement of the company, to say that compliance with the impugned order would irreparably injure it.”

    “The court notices that the nearly 18 month pendency of this appeal, and the non-compliance with the impugned order (of single judge), has aggrandised the appellant (SpiceJet), which was to have the benefit of the amounts. “If there were any difficulties, this interregnum period would have helped it considerably tide over its affairs and certainly afforded time to organise it better and in a more orderly fashion to comply with the order,” the bench said while dismissing the appeals.

  • Delhi HC notice to Goswami, asks for avoiding rhetoric in Tharoor-Sunanda story

    NEW DELHI: Even as it asked him to avoid rhetoric in his reports, the Delhi High Court today issued notice to Republic TV and Arnab Goswami over the Congress leader Shashi Tharoor’s defamation plea.

    Fixing the next date of hearing to 16 August, Justice Manmohan observed: “Bring down the rhetoric. You can put out your story. You can put out the facts. You cannot call him names. That is uncalled for.”

    Lok Sabha MP Tharoor had filed a civil defamation suit late last week against Goswami and the TV channel, seeking damages and compensation of Rs 20 million for allegedly making defamatory remarks against him during a news broadcast related to the death of his wife Sunanda Pushkar.

    The lawsuit filed through advocates Muhammad Ali Khan and Gaurav Gupta claimed that the recordings were released in a sensational manner and created a ‘non-existing controversy’ by maligning Tharoor’s public life and image.

    The petition said, “It is not out of place to say that Goswami and the TV channel broadcast news reports and ‘alleged expose’ which were intended to lead the viewers to believe that the deceased was murdered either by Tharoor or at his instance. Such a broadcast ‘clearly has the potential of adversely impacting the ongoing investigation into the death of the deceased’,” the plea said.

    Tharoor said Goswami had earlier aired similar news when he was the editor-in-chief with another TV news channel (Times Now), which was restrained by the National Broadcasting Standards Authority.

    The Congress MP also said the police was investigating the matter and had also registered an FIR. “It is pertinent to mention that the Delhi Police took statements from a number of people, including him,” the suit said. It also stated that during the probe not a single allegation has been made by the investigating authorities against the MP.