Category: Regulators

TDSAT sets aside amendments for commercial & ordinary subscribers

NEW DELHI: Two amendments made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to its tariff orders that aimed at preventing broadcasters from giving their channels directly to the subscribers and putting commercial subscriber at par with ordinary subscribers were today struck down by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT).

TDSAT chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh said the two amendments were ‘quite unsustainable and we are thus constrained to set aside the impugned amendment orders.’

The amendments referred to are the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Twelfth Amendment) Order 2014 dated 16 July, 2014 and the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff (Fourth Amendment) Order 2014 dated 18 July, 2014 by which similar amendments were made in the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services(Second) Tariff Order 2004 dated 1 October, 2004 (relating to non-addressable or analogue systems) and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order 2010 dated 21 July, 2010 (relating to addressable systems) respectively.

The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and the Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Association of India (FHRAI) had challenged the amendments as the commercial subscriber is put at par with the ordinary subscriber and the tariff orders treat as equal groups of subscribers that are inherently unequal and are also so recognised in their different definitions in the tariff orders.

The impugned amendments introduce mainly three changes: firstly, the broadcaster is no longer allowed to provide its channels directly to a subscriber, be it an “ordinary subscriber” or a “commercial subscriber;” secondly, the terms “commercial establishment” and “commercial subscriber” are defined elaborately and classified separately from “ordinary subscriber” and thirdly, though defined and classified separately from “ordinary subscriber,” for the purpose of charges for receiving supply of channels, the very large and highly heterogeneous body of “commercial subscriber” is en-block put completely at par with the “ordinary subscriber.”

The appellants are aggrieved by the amendments in so far as the commercial subscriber is put at par with the ordinary subscriber and contend that as a result of the impugned amendments, the tariff orders treat as equal groups of subscribers that are inherently unequal and are also so recognized in their different definitions in the tariff orders.

The Tribunal said even while the hearing of the present appeal before the Tribunal was underway, TRAI issued the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Fourteenth Amendment) Order 2015 on 6 January, 2015 that inter alia restates the impugned amendments in the Second and Fourth tariff order. Consequently the appellants have filed an application for amending the appeal with a view to challenge the restatement of the impugned amendments in the fourteenth amendment of the Second tariff order.

Allowing the petition, TDSAT said proviso 6 and 7 to clause 3 of the fourteenth amendment along with the explanation appended to proviso 7 are also set aside.

It said TRAI must now undertake a fresh exercise ‘on a completely clean slate. It must put aside the earlier debates on the basis of which it has been making amendments in the three principal tariff orders none of which has so far passed judicial scrutiny. It must consider afresh the question whether commercial subscribers should be treated equally as home viewers for the purpose of broadcasting services tariff or there needs to be a different and separate tariff system for commercial subscribers or some parts of that larger body. It is hoped and expected that TRAI will issue fresh tariff orders within six months from to-day.’

TDSAT said that now that the impugned tariff orders are quashed, the question that arises is the rates that commercial establishments are to be charged, especially those that were excluded from the tariff protection by the seventh amendment of the Second tariff order until TRAI comes out with the fresh tariff order.

The seventh amendment to the Second tariff order and the first amendment to the Third (CAS Area) tariff order were quashed by the judgment of the Tribunal dated 28 May, 2010 but those were kept alive by the Supreme Court for a period of three months from 16 April, 2014, the date of the order by which the Court confirmed the Tribunal’s judgment.

As that period is long over, TDSAT said it would not be proper to revive the tariff amendment orders dated 21 November, 2006. As a consequence, the un-amended Second, Third and Fourth tariff orders will come into play and commercial subscriber would, by default, get bracketed with ordinary subscriber.

In other words though the impugned amendments in the tariff orders are quashed by this judgment, TDSAT said for practical purposes the situation will continue to remain the same. This is because despite two orders by the Supreme Court to consider the question of tariff in respect of commercial subscribers within specified times periods, TRAI has not been able to produce the tariff that would satisfy judicial scrutiny.

“This is evidently a highly anomalous situation and to remedy it TRAI must consider whether to issue an interim tariff order dealing with the matter until it takes a final call on the subject. TRAI should take a decision in regard to any interim arrangement within one month from today.”

The Tribunal said, “We are fully mindful that TRAI has been painstakingly grappling with this matter for a long time. We also recognise that the issue is highly complex and no easy answers are available. We feel that a good deal of confusion and misunderstanding has resulted from the fact that the seventh amendment of the Second tariff order came to be issued just three days before the pronouncement of the judgment by the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation. TRAI can hardly be blamed for this as it had acted in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court by which the Court had modified the status quo order passed at the time of the admission of the appeal. But the result was that in framing the seventh amendment to the Second tariff order, TRAI did not have the benefit of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the matter. At the same time the Supreme Court could not get to know how the First and the Second tariff orders were perceived by their maker, the regulator and to what object and purpose those tariff orders were made according to the regulator.”

The seventh amendment to the Second tariff order and the amendment to the Third CAS areas tariff order were eventually quashed by the Tribunal and in the judgment TRAI came in for some strong criticism.

TDSAT said it appeared that as a result of this, TRAI went to the other extreme in coming up with the impugned tariff orders. All the different kinds of commercial subscribers being put en block at par with the ordinary subscriber appears to be as arbitrary and unreasonable as the carving out of a very small segment of hotels [namely, (i) hotels with rating of three stars and above, (ii) heritage hotels and (iii) any other hotel/motel, inn and such other commercial establishment providing board and lodging having 50 or more rooms] for exclusion from the tariff protection.

“We are strongly of the view that what is required in the matter is a far more nuanced approach. We rather feel it is high time that TRAI should stop making any further amendments in the different tariff orders and take a completely fresh and holistic view on the question of tariff in broadcasting services. As a result of repeated amendments, the Second, Third and Fourth tariff orders have become so complicated that it has become difficult even to follow the exact import of a provision without examining all the amendments made earlier in the Principal tariff order. How much the tariff orders have become clumsy and unwieldy is evident from their very names as is sought be demonstrated in the opening lines of this judgment. We, accordingly, expect that as the whole country is now to come under the DAS regime, TRAI will undertake a fresh exercise and come out with a single consolidated instrument covering broadcasting services,” the Tribunal said.

March 9, 2015
Telecom spectrum bid: Rs 77,000 crore committed by end of round three

NEW DELHI: A total telecom spectrum of Rs 77,000 crore (provisional figure) was reached by the end of the week with 17 rounds.

Eight telecom operators — Reliance Communications, Reliance Jio Infocomm, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone India, Tata Teleservices, Uninor, Idea Cellular and Aircel attended the six fresh rounds of bidding.

On day one, bids value was Rs 60,000 crore, while day two bids value reached Rs 65,000 crore. The bids were held for spectrum in 2100 MHz, 1800 MHz, 900 MHz and 800 MHz bands.

The bidding has taken place in all bands, according to the Communications and Information Technology Ministry. There is still some spectrum available and auction will continue for this.

The reserve price value was around Rs 49,000 crores of provisionally won spectrum.

The estimated revenue from the auction of spectrum is targetted at Rs 64,840 crore (excluding 2100 MHz spectrum) of which Rs 16,000 crore is expected to be realized in the current financial year.

The reserve price approved is Rs 3646 crore pan-India per MHZ in 800 MHz, Rs 3980 crore for 900 MHz band pan India excluding Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta, and Jammu and Kashmir; Rs 2191 crore pan India (excluding Maharashtra and West Bengal) in 1800 MHz band.

A meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi had, early in January, approved the proposal of the Department of Telecom to proceed with auction in 800, 900 and 1800 MHz bands.

The quantum of spectrum to be put to auction was 103.75 MHz in 800 MHz band in all service areas, 177.8 MHz in 17 LSAs in 900 MHz band and 99.2 MHz in 15 LSAs in 1800 MHz band. Thus a total of 380.75 MHz in 800, 900 and 1800 MHz was being put to auction.

Payment terms, eligibility criteria and auction objectives shall be as in the previous auction of February 2014.

The Cabinet had also decided that intent to put 2100 MHz to simultaneous auction may be announced along with auction of other bands. Details of this will be announced later on.

Later that month on 15 January, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India opined that clubbing the 2100 MHz band spectrum with the spectrum of other bands for auction in February will be defeated if sufficient spectrum is not made available in the 2100 MHz band.

“A split auction of 2100 MHz (one in February 2015 and remaining say, in December 2015 after availability from Defence Ministry) will artificially increase the market price of 2100 MHz in February because of the severe supply constraint. The 15 MHz of spectrum in the 2100 MHz spectrum being vacated by the Defence Ministry should be auctioned in view of the in-principle agreement reached with MoD, even if it is not available immediately,” TRAI had said.

The Authority reiterated that in the auction of 2100 MHz band spectrum, an auction-specific cap should be placed that no bidder would be permitted to bid for more than two blocks in a local service area if three to four blocks are available in that local service area.

TRAI had said there was no change in the reserve prices for spectrum in the 2100 MHz bands from what were recommended earlier.

It said the Department of Telecom is responsible to ensure that the spectrum being auctioned is either interference free or to share information upfront about the areas where interference is likely to occur so that the telecom service providers participating in the auction can take informed decision.

These views were given to the DoT in Clarifications/Reconsideration of Recommendations on ‘Valuation and Reserve Price of Spectrum: 2100 MHz Band’.

March 7, 2015
Govt. moves to stop screening on internet websites as notice is issued to two lawyers

NEW DELHI: Even as the documentary “India’s Daughter” by Oscar-winning British filmmaker Leslee Udwin on the Nirbhaya gang-rape case has been telecast by BBC4 on a channel not available in India despite the ban by the Delhi High Court, two lawyers who defended the rapists have been issued notices for their allegedly anti-women remarks.

The notices were issued by the Bar Council of India to M L Sharma and A P Singh under a provision of the advocates act and their licences to practice may be cancelled if BCI is not satisfied with their response.

Sharma has already refuted the charge that he made any such remarks in the documentary.

Within hours, the film became available on YouTube despite a message that showed “URL Blocked”. It also became available on some other websites.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh said two days earlier that the government was exploring ways to block the film on YouTube. He also said action would be taken for the telecast of the film last night and added that he was pained by the development

The documentary was to have been aired in the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and India (NDTV 24X7) on International Women’s Day 8 March.

But a statement from the BBC two days earlier said given the “intense level of interest” it would telecast the film later. Butthe channel later said in a communication to the Home Ministry that it had no plans to telecast the documentary in India, “in compliance with the Indian Government’s directive”.

Singh had also said that it would attempt to block the telecast in other countries and the External Affairs and Information and Broadcasting Ministries had been asked to ensure the film was not broadcast on any platform anywhere in the world.

Singh had made a statement in Parliament amid massive uproar over how permission was granted to the filmmaker to interview Mukesh Singh, one of the six men who brutally raped and tortured a 23-year-old paramedical student on a moving bus on 16 December 2012. She had died 13 days later in a Singapore hospital.

In the interview, Mukesh Singh said the rape and killing was deliberate to teach women a lesson, and displayed no remorse as he blamed the woman.

The BBC said in its statement, “This harrowing documentary, made with the full support and co-operation of the victim’s parents, provides a revealing insight into a horrific crime that sent shock waves around the world and led to protests across India demanding changes in attitudes towards women.”

“The film handles the issue responsibly and we are confident the programme fully complies with our editorial guidelines,” it said.

Delhi Police chief BS Bassi said: “We took a regular order from a competent court and informed BBC and other channels against broadcasting and uploading of the video of the interview on internet and so that nobody violates the law.” The Delhi Police have filed a case and have started investigation, Mr Bassi said. He said permission to take interview is always the discretion of the concerned authority, so we are not looking for criminality in that.

The Delhi Police has written to the Telecom and Communications Ministry and sought blocking of the film on YouTube. The Police may also question the crew who shot the film. While its co-producer Dibang is in India, Udwin is understood to have left late last night for the United Kingdom. (Ms Udwin was producer of the award-winning feature film ‘East is East’ which had starred Om Puri among others around twenty years earlier,)

Lalita Kumaramangalam felt that showing the film was ‘morally wrong’ as the broadcaster did not think about the anguish that women who have faced such things will go through.

However, film lyricist and Rajya Sabha member Javed Akhtar said the film should be shown to reveal to the world what rapists are like. He said he could have understood the ban if Mukesh’s lawyer had asked for it. He said the goal of such documentaries is to bring out disgust against rapists’ point of view. “It makes people aware such a mindset is not uncommon.”

Bharatiya Janata Party member of Parliament from Mumbai Poonam Mahajan has said in an article that the film only shows the mindset of men.

Meanwhile, people took to the streets in Varanasi earlier this week and burnt an effigy of the BBC in protest against the documentary.

Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said the channel that broadcast the Nirbhaya documentary will not be forgiven.

The victim’s father, who had cooperated with the filmmaker, has now said that BBC should not have been shown in view of the ban.

Meanwhile, Udwin has said society created the rapists by teaching them “what to think”. She said she was not inspired by the rape to make the film, but the wave of protests this generated all over the country within hours of the report. In an interview with India Insight (a blog on Reuter website), she said the argument that airing the convict’s interview would amount to giving him a platform to promote his views was “stupid” and “uneducated.”

In a separate interview to CNN, Udwin described the people she spoke with – the attorneys, the lawyers, and the culprits – as “ordinary, apparently normal and certainly unremarkable men.”

CNN says that Udwin’s documentary illustrates how even people with power in India harbour shockingly similar attitudes. One of the lawyers who represented the attackers says he would burn his own daughter alive if she behaved dishonourably. Another defence lawyer gestures with his hands to describe women as “flowers” who must be protected by men and “diamonds” who face inevitable assault if they end up in the wrong places.

March 7, 2015
Spectrum bid: Six e-auction rounds held; bidders commit Rs 60,000 crore

NEW DELHI: Six rounds of bidding were completed in the auction of spectrum in 2100 MHz, 1800 MHz, 900 MHz and 800 MHz bands, which began today.

The bidding has taken place in all bands, according to the Communications and Information Technology Ministry.

At present, a value of approximately Rs 60,000 crores has been committed by bidders against the value (at reserve price) of around Rs 49,000 crores of provisionally won spectrum.

However, spectrum is still available and bidding for this will re-commence tomorrow.

The estimated revenue from the auction of spectrum is targeted at Rs 64,840 crore (excluding 2100 MHz spectrum) of which Rs 16,000 crore is expected to be realized in the current financial year.

The reserve price approved is Rs 3646 crore pan-India per MHZ in 800 MHz, Rs 3980 crore for 900 MHz band pan India excluding Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta, and Jammu and Kashmir; Rs 2191 crore pan India (excluding Maharashtra and West Bengal) in 1800 MHz band.

A meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi had, early in January, approved the proposal of the Department of Telecom to proceed with auction in 800, 900 and 1800 MHz bands.

The quantum of spectrum to be put to auction was 103.75 MHz in 800 MHz band in all service areas, 177.8 MHz in 17 LSAs in 900 MHz band and 99.2 MHz in 15 LSAs in 1800 MHz band. Thus a total of 380.75 MHz in 800,900 and 1800 MHz was being put to auction.

Payment terms, eligibility criteria and auction objectives shall be as in the previous auction of February 2014.

The Cabinet had also decided that intent to put 2100 MHz to simultaneous auction may be announced along with auction of other bands. Details of this will be announced later.

Later that month on 15 January, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India opined that clubbing the 2100 MHz band spectrum with the spectrum of other bands for auction in February will be defeated if sufficient spectrum is not made available in the 2100 MHz band.

“A split auction of 2100 MHz (one in February 2015 and remaining say, in December 2015 after availability from Defence Ministry) will artificially increase the market price of 2100 MHz in February because of the severe supply constraint. The 15 MHz of spectrum in the 2100 MHz spectrum being vacated by the Defence Ministry should be auctioned in view of the in-principle agreement reached with MoD, even if it is not available immediately,” TRAI had said.

The Authority reiterated that in the auction of 2100 MHz band spectrum, an auction-specific cap should be placed that no bidder would be permitted to bid for more than two blocks in a local service area if three to four blocks are available in that local service area.

TRAI had said there was no change in the reserve prices for spectrum in the 2100 MHz bands from what were recommended earlier.

It said that the Department of Telecom is responsible to ensure that the spectrum being auctioned is either interference free or to share information upfront about the areas where interference is likely to occur so that the telecom service providers participating in the auction can take informed decision.

These views were given to the DoT in Clarifications/Reconsideration of Recommendations on ‘Valuation and Reserve Price of Spectrum: 2100 MHz Band’.

March 5, 2015
Delhi HC stays telecast of film on Nirbhaya; MIB asks channels not to show excerpts

NEW DELHI: In a day of speedy action, the Delhi High Court today upheld the stay on telecast of a documentary based on interviews including one with a convict in the 16 December, 2012 Delhi gang-rape case.

The court also banned telecast of the documentary on the internet too. “Cops can act if the film is aired,” the Delhi high court said on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, in statements in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said the government will be moving the court, and also informed members that a police complaint was filed against the film, India’s Daughter produced and directed by British filmmaker Leslee Udwin and co-produced by Indian TV journalist Dibang. He said stay orders had been taken from a local court last night itself after he had learnt about the film. (The Rajya Sabha was adjourned for some time in the morning following an uproar by the opposition on the issue.)

The Information and Broadcasting Ministry also posted an advisory on its website asking private television channels not to air excerpts from the film as this was violative of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and the Downlinking Guidelines and was also sub judice as an appeal by the main convicted Mukesh Singh was pending. Mukesh Singh along with three others was convicted and sentenced to death last year.

In Parliament, the Home Minister admitted that the no-objection certificate to shoot the documentary featuring interview of convicted inmates in Tihar jail of cases related to atrocities against women was given by the ministry of home affairs on 24 July, 2013, adding that “in future, no one will be given permission to interview rapists.”

“The government has taken necessary legal action and obtained restraining order from the court on disseminating the contents of the film,” he said.

“Our government condemns the incident of 16 December, 2012, in the strongest possible terms and will not allow any attempt by any individual group or organisation to leverage such unfortunate incidents for commercial benefits,” he said.

“The respect and dignity of women constitute a core value of our culture and tradition… our government remains fully committed to ensuring safety and dignity of women.”

The minister added that he had sought information regarding the conditions under which permission was given for the interview. “If needed, responsibility will be fixed (for granting permission),” Singh said while making the statement in the Lok Sabha.

He said permission was given by jail authorities to shoot the documentary, with condition of taking prior approval of jail authorities before publishing the research paper or for releasing documentary film which “is being made for totally social purposes without any commercial interest, as conveyed.”

Other conditions included that only those inmates will be interviewed who give written consent, and that the complete unedited footage of the shoot in Tihar jail premises will be shown to jail authorities to ensure there was no breach of prison security.

“This documentary features one of the accused of the Nirbhaya case. It came to the notice of jail authorities that conditions have been violated. Hence a legal notice was issued to them on April 7, 2014,” the Home Minister said. The minister said the documentary makers were asked to return the unedited footage and also not to show the film as it violates the permission condition.

“The documentary film was shown to jail authorities where it was noticed that the documentary film depicts the comments of the convict which are highly derogatory to dignity of women,” he said.

A physiotherapy student was raped and assaulted with an iron rod after she was tricked into boarding an unregistered private bus to go home after watching a movie with a male friend on December 16, 2013. The girl later died in a hospital in Singapore.

Mukesh Singh, one of the convicts in the gang-rape case, justified the action in the documentary, saying women who go out at night had only themselves to blame if they attracted the attention of molesters.

Reacting to the Delhi High Court’s order, producer-dorector Leslee Udwin told indiantelevision.com that she was confident that the film would ultimately be telecast in India after a senior government official sees the film. She also said that due permissions had been obtained and the film has even been shown to the jail authorities. She said that this film however will be shown in other countries. She wondered how anyone could go to court and file a PIL without seeing the film in its entirety and merely based on media reports.

March 4, 2015
Govt. assures Parliament that film on Nirbhaya incident of December 2012 will not be telecast

NEW DELHI: Following strong protests in Rajya Sabha today, Home Minister Rajnath Singh committed to members that the government will move to court to restrain the screening of the film on the ghastly Nirbhaya incident of 16 December 2012 by British filmmaker Leslee Udwin while informing the upper house that a first information report has already been filed against the producers.

The uproar arose out of the revelation in the press meet on 3 March by Udwin and co-producer Dibang that the film contained interviews conducted in Tihar Jail with those who have been convicted in the case, including Mukesh Singh who had justified the gang rape.

Singh said that he is personally hurt by the incident and he has spoken to the authorities to stop screening of the documentary in India. He said the government will act promptly and firmly against those officials and others responsible for giving permission to the BBC and a British filmmaker to go ahead with the interviews and to subsequently allow its broadcast.

Earlier before question, Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi gave an absolute assurance that the government would act, but this did not satisfy the opposition, and some members trooped into the Well of the House to disrupt proceedings. The House session was being chaired by its Deputy Chairman P.J.Kurien, who had to adjourn for 15 minutes.

Singh said, “The condition was given to shoot the interview for social purpose and not for commercial use. A legal notice was issued to them when the jail authorities came to know that it violated the conditions. The permission to shoot the documentary was given with conditions.”

Later, Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore said, “The airing of documentary would be contempt of court. This entire documentary is against the programming code of I&B ministry. Language seems to incite violence against women, and instills fear.”

Although nobody has been named in the FIR, Delhi Police Commissioner B S Bassi maintained that the ‘main actor’ is the person who has made these assertions.

He urged the media not to broadcast any assertion which transgresses the domain of law. “This was a ghastly crime. One has to take into consideration that reporting of a crime does not transgress the domain of law and if that happens then the law will have to take its own course,” he told reporters.

The FIR was registered under IPC sections 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) 505(1)(b) (With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public), 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and section 66A of the IT Act (Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service) at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police.

Udwin had claimed that she took permission from the then Director General of Tihar jail Vimla Mehra to interview Mukesh Singh in prison for the BBC.

Asked about this claims, Bassi said, “I am not aware of any permission. Even if it was given, it was given to remain in the domain of law. If any act transgresses the domain of law and particularly IPC, I am duty bound to take action and we have registered a case.”

The India-United King co-production India’s Daughter was slated for a world premiere simultaneously in India, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and Canada.

NDTV 24×7 was to telecast of the interview-based documentary in India on International Women’s Day – 8 March at 9.00 pm.

India’s Daughter tells the story of the horrific Delhi gang rape and of the unprecedented protests and riots, which this horrific event ignited throughout India, demanding changes in attitudes towards women.

Udwin said Mukesh Singh, the driver of the bus in which the 23-year-old paramedical student was brutally gang-raped by six men, said women who went out at night had only themselves to blame if they attracted the attention of gangs of male molesters.

March 4, 2015
Govt. invites applications for e-auction of first batch of phase III FM Radio stations

NEW DELHI: A notice was issued by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry (I&B) inviting applications for the first batch of phase III FM auctions for 135 stations in 69 cities which already have FM channels.

In addition, e-auction will be held in eight new cities in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states.

While the Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) was issued on 2 March, the pre bid conference will be on 10 March, the last date for seeking clarifications on NIA will be on 11 March, clarifications to NIA on 16 March, last date for submission of applications on 23 March, publication of ownership details of applicants on 7 April, Bidder Ownership Compliance Certificate on 10 April, pre-qualification of bidders on 17 April or completion of requisite formalities whichever is later and a mock auction within a week of that and the main e-auction a week thereafter.

The Ministry has placed the full details of the formalities on its website mib.nic.in and has appointed M/s C1 India Private Limited as the ‘Auctioneer’ to advise the Government on the Auction. Administration of the e-auction shall also be the responsibility of M/s C1 India Private Limited.

It has also placed on the website the reserve price of each city and station for e-auction.

The Auction shall be a Simultaneous Multiple Round Ascending (SMRA) e-auction, conducted over the internet. Bidders will be able to access the Electronic Auction System to be used for participation in the auctions using web browsing software: Internet Explorer 11.x, or Mozilla 34.x or Google Chrome 37.x.

The EAS is a designated computer resource for the receiving of electronic records under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Information Technology Act 2000, as amended from time to time.

Prior to the auction, bidders will have to procure Class-III Digital Signature Certificate(s) (DSC) for signing and encryption issued by any valid Certifying Authority (approved by Controller of Certifying Authorities) in India which is mandatory for accessing the Electronic Auction System (EAS). The details of the licensed Certifying Authorities (CAs) are available on www.cca.gov.in.

Winning Bidders of FM channel(s) in each city shall be determined in the first stage, a Channel Allocation Stage, which will allocate FM channel(s) simultaneously for all the cities. The second stage, a Frequency Allocation Stage, will identify specific frequencies for the winning bidders.

March 3, 2015
Apex Court yet to decide on matter of inducting DD correspondents in Indian Broadcasting Service

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is still to decide on an appeal by the Government against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh High Court that television news correspondents and assistant news correspondents in Doordarshan should be considered to be inducted into the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service.

The orders of November 2000 and March 2014 of CAT and the High Court respectively also said these staff should be provided with all benefits of service and be considered for promotion to JAG in accordance with their experience, eligibility and suitability. The High Court had stayed the matter with regard to taking the news correspondents into the IB(P)S.

Minister of state for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore told the Rajya Sabha today that TV NCs /TV ANCS were engaged as Artists on Casual contract basis for a period of six months in 1988. In March 1989 it was decided to engage them as “Artists” on a fresh contract of five years. In May 1993 they were declared as regular temporary Government Servants with retrospective effect from 1988.

In the absence of Recruitment Rules for this cadre, they could not be granted promotion. However, eligible officers were given Assured Career Progression/Modified Assured Career Progression.

Two posts of Special News Correspondent and one post of Principal Correspondent were created on 27 August 2010 to open the promotional avenues in the cadre in pursuance of the order of the Principal Bench of CAT in Delhi. No appeal was filed by the Centre.

The Recruitment Rules for these employees have been notified on 24 March 2014 which provide for promotion to the higher grades.

March 3, 2015
Action taken against 50 channels since 2012 for programme or advertising code violation

NEW DELHI: Action has been taken against three television channels so far in 2015, of which two have been taken without issue of any show cause notice.

Colors was issued an order on 8 January relating to the programme Fear Factor Khatron Ke khiladi – Darr ka Blockbuster following a show cause notice sent initially on 22 May last year.

Lemon TV was issued a warning on 19 January for telecast of programme Khauf Ke 10 Destination.

NTV Telugu News was taken off air for seven days following an order on 19 January for telecast of a song-based programme Cine Colors containing obscene visuals.

Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore told the Rajya Sabha today that apart from these, action was taken 16 times in 2012, 32 times in 2013 and 22 times in 2014 against various channels on violation of Programme and Advertisement code.

Action was taken – including warnings – against 49 channels between 2012 and 2115. This includes nine channels, which figured more than once in the list of actions taken from 2012 onwards.

This includes advisories issued to all channels in 12 cases between 2012 and 2013 against telecast of certain advertisements or to ensure that the Censor Certificate is shown before telecast of a film, avoid unnecessary scenes of road rage and rash driving, reporting on children, comparison of speech of the Prime Minister with the speech of other political leaders on Independence Day 2013, telecasting programmes promoting blind belief, telecast of inflammatory and provocative news/programmes in a sensational manner, and direct telecast of the events round the clock relating to public demonstrations likely to encourage violence and against maintenance of law and order and likely to promote anti-national attitudes.

March 3, 2015
Govt. denies interference in working of CBFC

NEW DELHI: The Government has categorically denied any interference in the decision-making of the Central Board of Film Certification or any coercion on the chairperson or any other member by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry.

Minister of state for I&B Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore said that the Ministry had ‘at no point’ communicated with the chairperson or members regarding certification of any film.

While announcing that Pahlaj Nihalani was made chairman and 10 new Board members had been appointed to fill the places of nine members who resigned, Rathore told Parliament that the legal regime with regard to CBFC is well laid out and it is the Board alone which decides within its jurisdiction.

Aggrieved producers have the right to move the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal headed by a retired Judge of a High Court which decides matters in appeal in accordance with the Cinematograph Act.

There are adequate provisions in the Act and the Rules to protect the autonomy of the Board.

He said Leela Samson’s tenure as chairperson had ended in March but she had continued to hold charge because as per the Certification Rules an outgoing Chairperson has to hold charge until the new incumbent takes over. While there is no such rule for the members, fourteen members whose tenure had ended on 24 May had been asked to continue until further orders.

The resignation of Samson and nine other members who resigned alleging interference was accepted with effect from 19 January this year.

March 2, 2015