Category: Supreme Court

  • Double trouble for broadcasters as Supreme Court green-lights twin tax hit

    Double trouble for broadcasters as Supreme Court green-lights twin tax hit

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court has delivered a one-two punch to India’s broadcasters, ruling on Thursday that they must cough up both service tax and entertainment tax on their activities. The decision ends years of legal wrangling over whether television companies could dodge the double whammy.

    A bench led by justice B V Nagarathna and justice N K Singh declared that parliament and state legislatures both have the constitutional chops to levy their respective taxes. The 321-page judgment—longer than most television programmes—essentially told broadcasters they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

    “The two taxes target different aspects of the same activity,” the court explained, rather like taxing both the recipe and the meal. Parliament’s service tax under the Finance Act hits the broadcasting service itself, whilst states’ entertainment tax treats television as a luxury under Entry 62 of the Constitution’s List II.

    The judges were having none of the broadcasters’ arguments that they should pay only service tax to the central government. “No entertainment can reach viewers unless broadcasters transmit signals,” justice Nagarathna noted. “There are two aspects: transmitting signals and providing entertainment through set-top boxes that decrypt them.”

    This legal drama began with a clutch of cases from various high courts, with Kerala versus Asianet Satellite Communications taking the starring role. Broadcasters had argued they were merely in the signal-transmission business, not the entertainment game. The Supreme Court was not buying this technicality.

    The ruling overturns a 2012 Kerala high court decision that had favoured cable operators over DTH (direct-to-home) providers, calling such discrimination unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said this earlier judgment got it wrong—both cable and DTH operators are in the entertainment business and should be taxed accordingly.

    For India’s broadcasting industry, already grappling with cord-cutting and streaming competition, this represents yet another headache. The ruling makes clear that technological differences in how entertainment is delivered do not exempt anyone from the taxman’s reach.

    The court’s message is unambiguous: whether you beam signals from satellites or snake cables through neighbourhoods, if you are in the business of keeping Indians glued to their screens, you will pay through the nose for the privilege.

  • Self-certification of ads: A deeper legal perspective

    Self-certification of ads: A deeper legal perspective

    Mumbai: The Indian advertising industry, like any other market of the world, plays a significant role in shaping consumer sentiment towards products and services available in the market. Correspondingly, it is essential to have adequate regulation and supervision of the sector for ensuring that advertisements do not result in manipulation of consumer behaviour based on fallacious claims. The supreme court recently in Indian Medical Association vs Union of India addressed concerns surrounding misleading advertisements in the case where Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition accusing Patanjali Ayurveda of issuing misleading advertisements and passing critical remarks against allopathy. The court highlighted the responsibility of both advertisers and endorsers in instances of misleading advertisements.

    Advertisements, misleading advertisements, related terms and concerns

    Advertisements: An advertisement, under Advertising Standards Council of India (“ASCI”) code for self-regulation of advertising content in India, is defined as a paid-for communication, addressed to the public or a section of it, the purpose of which is to promote, directly or indirectly, the sale or use of goods and services to whom it is addressed. Any communication which in the normal course may or may not be recognised as advertisement by the general public, but is paid for, or owned or authorised by the advertiser or their advertising agency would be included in the definition.

    The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”) defines an advertisement as any audio or visual publicity, representation, endorsement or pronouncement made by means of light, sound, smoke, gas, print, electronic media, internet or website and includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or such other documents.

    According to the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s  (“CCPA”) Notification dated June 2022:

    a. “advertiser” means a person who designs, produces and publishes advertisements either by his own effort or by entrusting it to others in order to promote the sale of his goods, products or services and includes a manufacturer and service provider of such goods, products or services.

    b. “advertising agency” means a person or an establishment providing services in designing and production of advertisements or other related services for a commission or fee;

    Misleading advertisements: A ‘misleading advertisement’ is an advertisement that contains false, inaccurate and deceptive claims and representations about the product/service being represented, in a manner that is likely to accord to a potential buyer/consumer incorrect understanding about the product/service, thereby wrongfully influencing their purchase and usage decisions. Section 2(28) of the CPA defines misleading advertisement as any product or service which—

    (i) falsely describes such product or service; or

    (ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or

    (iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or

    (iv) deliberately conceals important information

    Celebrities and endorsers: ASCI defines a celebrity as anyone who (a) gets compensated Rs 40 lakh or equivalent value annually for appearing in advertisements or campaigns on any medium and any format; or (b) has a social media followership of 500,000 or more on any single social media handle. Celebrities or influencers (an individual or a group or an institution) who make endorsement of any goods, product or service can be  defined as endorsers. An endorser has the power to affect/influence their audiences’ purchasing decisions or opinions about a product, service, brand or experience, because of their authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience, and also accord credibility and reliability to the brand in view of their association therewith.

    Under the current legal framework, the penalties for taking part in creation and publication of misleading advertisements are:

    1.  A first offence under the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act (DOMA), 1954 could lead to imprisonment for six months and/or a fine. For subsequent offences, the punishment may extend to one year.

    2.  The CPA imposes stricter consequences, with a potential imprisonment term of upto two years and a fine of around Rs 10 lakh for violations. Repeat offences escalate to a five-year imprisonment term and a fine of approximately Rs 50 lakh.

    In view of the alarming rise in misleading advertisements in the market, the supreme court as well as various governmental and private bodies have issued regulations and guidelines directed towards endorsers/influencers, advertisers and advertisement agencies in relation to publication to advertisements. A glimpse of such directions, guidelines and regulations have been provided below.

    A.  Guidelines issued by courts for endorsers concerning misleading advertisements:

    The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the aforementioned Patanjali case stated that “advertisers/advertising agencies and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading advertisements. Such endorsements that are routinely made by public figures, influencers, celebrities etc. go a long way in promoting a product. It is imperative for them to act with a sense of responsibility when endorsing any product and take responsibility for the same …”.

    The bench further stated that persons who endorse a product should have adequate information or experience with such specific product to be endorsed, and it must be ensured that it must not be deceptive. Celebrities and social media influencers will be equally liable for misleading advertisements, if they endorse any deceptive product or service.

    Concerning misleading advertisements, the court issued the following directions:

    1  Broadcasters or print media have to file a self-declaration form before carrying any advertisements, assuring that the advertisement to be carried on its platform complies with Cable Network Rules, Advertising Code etc.

    2  Ministries were directed to set up a specific procedure which will encourage the consumer to lodge a complaint and for the said complaint to be taken to a logical conclusion instead of simply being endorsed or marked.

    3  Persons who endorse a product should have adequate information or experience with specific product to be endorsed, and it must be ensured that it is must not be deceptive.

    4  Celebrities and social media influencers will be equally liable for misleading advertisements, if they endorse any deceptive product or service.

    5  The ministry of consumer affairs, was ordered to file a fresh affidavit on action taken by CCPA on false or misleading advertisements,

    B.  Guidelines under various statutes and governmental and private bodies

    1.  ASCI self-regulation guidelines for endorsers and advertisers

    ASCI, established in 1985, is committed to the cause of self-regulation in advertising, ensuring  protection of the interests of consumers. It seeks to ensure that advertisements conform to its code for self-regulation, which requires these to be legal, decent, honest and truthful, and not hazardous or harmful, while observing fairness in competition. Some core tenets of ASCI guidelines with reference to celebrities in advertising are–

    1    Advertisements with celebrities should not violate any guideline of the ASCI code.

    2    It is an obligation of the advertiser to make a celebrity aware of the code.

    3    Representations by a celebrity must be genuine and must be based on adequate information or experience.

    4    Due diligence necessary by the celebrity to ensure that representations made in the advertisements are objectively true and are not misleading or deceptive.

    5    Celebrities should not participate in any advertisement of products that are prohibited for advertising under the law. Examples include products under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940.

    6    A celebrity should not endorse a product for which a health warning is required to be issued.

    7    A celebrity may seek ‘advertising advice’ from ASCI on potential violations by an ad.

    In a bid to address misleading advertisements and safeguard consumers from unfair trade practices, especially arising out of celebrity endorsements, ASCI has laid out certain guidelines for celebrities/ influencers listing out their responsibilities while involving themselves in such marketing campaigns.

    The guidelines (dated July 13th, 2023) lay down the following –

    1  Celebrities endorsing products must adhere to the ASCI codes. Testimonials and endorsements should genuinely reflect the individual’s current opinion, grounded in sufficient knowledge or experience with the advertised product or service.

    2  It’s upon the advertisers and agencies to ensure that celebrities are well-informed about these codes. Celebrities must rigorously verify the accuracy of claims and comparisons in advertisements they endorse, ensuring they’re objectively substantiated and not misleading.

    3  They must abstain from endorsing products prohibited under the Drugs & Magic Remedies Act or requiring health warnings, as mandated by the Drugs & Cosmetics Act.

    4  Celebrities have the option to seek endorser due diligence (EDD) from ASCI to be compliant with the ASCI code and other relevant legal statutes, to protect themselves from any potential violations or litigations down the line.

    However, ASCI being a private self-regulating body, lacks the authority to compel businesses to adhere to the ASCI guidelines in a meaningful manner.

    2.  Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)’s guidelines on false or misleading advertisements

    CCPA, unlike ASCI does have that power to compel businesses to adhere to their guidelines and their guidelines for misleading advertisements and endorsements, 2022 (“guidelines”), state the following-

    1  These guidelines obligated, inter alia, businesses to comply with stringent regulations governing misleading advertisements.

    2  The guidelines require that the endorsement in an ad must reflect the genuine and reasonably current opinion of the endorser, that includes celebrity or influencer, and must be based on adequate information about, or experience with, the identified goods or service and should not be deceptive.

    3  Adherence to the guidelines is essential for celebrities and influencers to maintain transparency and authenticity with their audience. Not only is this supposed to hold the endorsers responsible but also helps the consumers make informed decisions.

    The guidelines state that individuals or groups who have access to an audience and the power to affect their audiences’ purchasing decisions or opinions about a product, service, brand, or experience, because of the influencer’s or celebrity’s authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience must disclose to the audience if the endorsement is a result of benefit or incentive from the advertiser. That is, if the endorser (including celebrities and influencers) is endorsing a product for which they have received some monetary/non-monetary compensation or any other form of sponsorship from the advertiser, the endorsement must clearly and prominently disclose the same. Following are the specific requirements and mandates to be followed by endorsers and influencers:

    i With respect to different formats used for endorsement, the guidelines stipulate the following rules for disclosure:

    1. For images: disclosures should be superimposed over the image enough for viewers to notice. 
    2. For videos: disclosures should be placed in the video and be made in both audio and video format.
    3. For live streams: disclosures should be displayed continuously and prominently during the entire stream.

    ii The disclosure must be made in simple and clear language.

    The disclosure must be made in simple and clear language. Terms such as “advertisement”, “sponsored”, “collaboration” or “paid promotion” can be used. Further, the disclosure should be made in the same language as the endorsement. Also, disclosures should not be mixed with a group of hashtags or links. The Guidelines specify that individuals must not endorse any product or service that they have not personally used or experienced or in which due diligence has not been done by them.

    iii Endorsers are liable for legal action if they do not disclose endorsement.

    The endorsers will be liable for legal consequences if they fail to disclose any material connection and/or upon non-compliance with the CPA and the associated rules. A material connection is any connection between an advertiser and endorser that may affect the weight or credibility of the representation made by the endorser. Material connection could include but is not limited to benefits and incentives, such as monetary or other compensation, free products with or without any conditions attached including those received unsolicited, discounts, gifts, contest and sweepstakes entries, trips or hotel stays, media barters, coverage, awards or any family or employment relationship, etc. According to Section 21 of the Act–

    (2) Notwithstanding the order passed under sub-section (1), if the Central Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary to impose a penalty in respect of such false or misleading advertisement, by a manufacturer or an endorser, it may, by order, impose on manufacturer or endorser a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees: Provided that the Central Authority may, for every subsequent contravention by a manufacturer or endorser, impose a penalty, which may extend to fifty lakh rupees.

    (3) Notwithstanding any order under sub-sections (1) and (2), where the Central Authority deems it necessary, it may, by order, prohibit the endorser of a false or misleading advertisement from making endorsement of any product or service for a period which may extend to one year: Provided that the Central Authority may, for every subsequent contravention, prohibit such endorser from making endorsement in respect of any product or service for a period which may extend to three years.

    3. The ministry of consumer affairs’, guidelines – endorsements know-hows!’ for celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers on social media platforms)

    The ministry of consumer affairs on 20 Jan, 2023, issued its guidelines (titled endorsements know-hows!’ for celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers on social media platforms) specifically pertaining to celebrity/ influencer endorsements.

    1  It emphasizes on the requirement of providing clear disclosures of any material connection with advertisers and straightforward language in endorsements; whereby, ‘material connection’ is deemed to be any connection between an advertiser and endorser that may affect the weight or credibility of the representation made by the endorser; and could include without being limited to benefits and incentives, such as monetary or other compensation, free products with or without any conditions attached including those received unsolicited, discounts, gifts, contest and sweepstakes entries, trips or hotel stays, media barters, coverage, awards or any family or employment relationship, etc.

    2  Terms like “advertisement” or “sponsored” should denote paid promotions. Endorsers must avoid promoting products they haven’t personally used.

    3  Aligned with the CPA, the guidelines prohibit misleading advertisements and outlines responsibilities for manufacturers, service providers, advertisers, and agencies.

    4  It reinforces guidelines for valid advertisements and addresses celebrity and endorser responsibilities.

    4.  The ministry of information & broadcasting’s advisory to endorsers on restriction on promoting, advertising, endorsing, even through surrogate marketing, offshore betting and gambling

    The ministry of information and broadcasting, on 21 March, 2024, issued an advisory directed towards endorsers and online influencers, restricting them from promoting, advertising, endorsing, even though surrogate marketing, offshore betting and gambling to the consumers, especially the youth. It states that –

    1  Emphasizing the significant financial and socio-economic implications, particularly on youth, the advisory also warns online advertisement intermediaries against targeting Indian audiences with such content.

    2  Social media platforms are urged to sensitize users and abstain from hosting such promotions.

    3  Non-compliance may result in actions under the CPA, including removal of the impugned post or account as well as penal measures.

    4  While Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 exempts intermediaries from liability, failure to promptly remove unlawful content upon notification can restrict application of this exemption.

    5  The directive aligns with the CCPA’s previous guidelines, expressing concerns over endorsements of betting/gambling platforms by celebrities and influencers, subjecting such advertisements to stringent scrutiny.

    Not only in recent times, but celebrities have been under the scanner even in the past for being part of misleading advertisements. For instance, in 2015, a resident of Delhi filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Central Delhi about the ‘Fair and Handsome Cream’, (world’s number one Fairness Cream for Men) being manufactured by Emami.  

    The complainant contended that he had used the product as per directions for use mentioned on the labelling and packaging of the product, but it had failed to show any results as claimed. He also argued that Emami had been using Shahrukh Khan as its brand ambassador for the promotion of the product and made false claims and promises that the product provides fairness in just three weeks.  The court ruled that the advertisements by Shahrukh Khan were misleading and directed Emami to pay an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as punitive damages to the consumer welfare fund. It also directed the company to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000 and withdrawal of the advertisement.

    Apart from this, there have also been many media reports of cases filed against celebrities like Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit, and Preity Zinta for promoting Nestle’s Maggi Noodles when the product was banned when found to contain taste enhancer MSG and the chemical lead beyond permissible limits, which are harmful to humans.

    A controversy regarding a pan masala advertisement occurred in 2016 when the former James Bond actor, Pierce Brosnan, appeared in an advertisement for Pan Bahar, a pan masala brand popular in India. Pan masala is a mixture of specific kinds of nuts, seeds, and spices, often chewed for its stimulating effects, but it has been associated with health risks, including oral cancer. Pierce Brosnan was severely criticized for endorsing a product that adversely affected health. Brosnan later clarified that he was misled about the nature of the product, believing it to be a breath freshener or tooth whitener rather than a tobacco product. He also stated that his contract specified that he was promoting a “breath freshener/tooth whitener,” and he felt betrayed by the company’s use of his image to promote a pan masala product. The celebrities and media agencies were requested not be a part of surrogate advertisements of tobacco in the name of pan masala, tea, elaichi or other goods as these are prohibited under section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003 (“COPTA”). COPTA bans all kinds of direct and indirect advertisements of tobacco products. The controversy sparked discussions about celebrity endorsements and ethical considerations regarding the endorsement of Indian products that could be harmful to health, irrespective of the nationality of the endorser.

    5  Ministry of information & broadcasting (MIB) mandate to advertisers/advertising agencies to furnish a ‘self-declaration certificate’  before airing or publishing any advertisement

    The Supreme Court, in furtherance to abovementioned guidelines for the endorsers, has issued a directive in its order dated 7 May 2024 whereby all advertisers and advertising agencies are mandated to furnish a ‘self-declaration certificate’ before airing or publishing any advertisement. The MIB has published a press release announcing a new feature facilitating self-declaration by advertisers and advertising agencies from print, broadcast as well as digital media starting 18 June  2024 (“Press Release”).

    This certificate, signed by an authorized representative of the advertiser or advertising agency, must be submitted through designated portals, as stated by MIB in an official recent press release. The supreme court took note of the absence of a “robust mechanism” to oversee whether advertisers are fulfilling the obligations stipulated under the guidelines released by the CCPA. The supreme court further clarified that these directions were to be treated as the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The supreme court in Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd. v. SEBI stated that the Constitution of India contemplates, that law declared by it, is binding on all courts within the territory of India. It also mandates, that an order made by the supreme court, is enforceable throughout the territory of India.

    Such self-declaration certificate shall be submitted through a designated portal activated on 4 June, 2024. The MIB  has introduced a new feature on the Broadcast Seva Portal of the MIB for TV and Radio Advertisements and on Press Council of India’s portal for print and digital/internet advertisements. The self-declaration certificate is mandatory for all advertisers/advertising agencies for all advertisements going live 18 June 2024 onwards, to be provided before broadcasting/publishing of such advertisement. For sake of clarity, the directive by Supreme Court and the following press release is not retrospective in nature and shall not be applicable on the advertisements that are already live. The salient aspects and observations in relation to the mechanism of self-declaration are provided hereinbelow:

    i Roadmap to Self-Declaration Certificate

    a. An authorized representative of the advertiser/advertising agency must sign and submit the self-declaration certificate, ensuring accountability and authenticity of the certificate.

    b. The authorized representative is required to provide comprehensive information about the advertised product or service, including advertisement title, description, script, and proposed date of first broadcast/publishing.

    c. The said submission of the certificate necessitates a letter of authorization, full advertisement script, video/audio file, and, if available and applicable, GST details and a CBFC certificate. The letter of authorization shall mandatorily be on the company letterhead of the advertiser/advertising agency and should be signed by the head of the company along with company seal.

    d. The certification includes affirmation of compliance with relevant regulatory guidelines, including those in Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of Press Council of India and aims to ensure that advertisements do not contain any misleading claims.

    e. The Advertisers are required to ensure accuracy and completeness of the details, before uploading the self-declaration certificate.

    f. The successful submission of the details generates an acknowledgment receipt.

    g. Advertiser shall be required to provide proof of uploading the self-declaration certificate to the relevant broadcaster, printer, publisher, or electronic media platform for their records. As per the supreme court’s directive and the press release, no advertisement will be permitted to run on television, print media, or the internet without a valid self-declaration certificate.

    ii Elucidation required by MIB on the Self-Declaration requirement:

    Among several obscurities in the Press Release, listed below are few major concerns:

    a.  Ambiguity on terms used in the press release by MIB:

    No clarity has been given either in the order or the press release, as to who will be considered as an ‘advertiser’ or an ‘advertising agency’. However, in the absence of clarifications, reliance is being laid on the definitions given under the guidelines. Furthermore, MIB requires a self-Declaration certificate to certify that the advertisement does not contain “misleading claims”, but the press release lacks clarity on what is considered as a “misleading claim”. Reference could be drawn from the CPA, and the definition of “misleading advertisement” included therein as mentioned hereinabove. However, based on assumptions, one cannot be certain if avoiding a “misleading advertisement” would fulfil the criteria of not being considered as a “misleading claim”.

    b. Ambiguity on requirement of  separate certificates for uploading one advertisement in different languages:

    There is no clarity on this aspect, however, drawing an analogy with CBFC certification, where a different CBFC certification is required when a movie is to be released in a different language, so that the committee can examine if any translated dialogue would fall foul of its earlier criteria for certification, it would be prudent for advertisers to procure separate self-declaration certificates for different languages of the same advertisement.

    c. Ambit of the MIB press release and question over inclusion of social media

    According to the order and the press release, digital/internet-based advertisements would also require a self-declaration certificate. Digital media is defined as a means of communication that can be transmitted over the internet or digital networks and includes communication received, stored, transmitted, edited or processed by a digital media platform. Digital Media includes but not limited to (i) internet (advergames, sponsored posts, branded content, promotional blogs, paid-for links, gamification, in-game advertising, teasers, viral advertising, augmented reality, native advertising, connected devices, influencers, etc.); (ii) On-demand across platforms including near video on demand, subscription video-on-demand, near movie on-demand, free video. On-demand, transactional video on demand, advertising video on demand, video on demand, pay per view, etc.; (iii) Mobile broadcast, mobile, communications content, websites, blogs, apps, etc. / Digital TV (including digital video broadcasting handheld and terrestrial), etc.; (iv) NSTV (non-standard television); (v) DDHE (digital delivery home entertainment); (vi) DTT (digital terrestrial television)

    Although the MIB press release is not free from ambiguity on its applicability to social media such as Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, etc., it would be sagacious to adhere to the directives and the Press Release to avoid potential legal repercussions in future, and ensure that there is no scope for claims to arise, in instances where the content so created and exploited constitutes an advertisement as per the foregoing definitions.

    iii Exclusions and Exceptions to the Self Declaration Requirement

    It was directed by the supreme court that no advertisements would be permitted on relevant channels (assuming channels on TV and radio), print media, or the internet without a self-declaration certificate. However, the MIB carves out exceptions for classifieds, personal advertisements, statutory advertisements, public information notices, tenders, and advertisements related to public functions. However, with respect to classifieds, classified advertisements directly related to consumer products and services will come under the ambit of self-declaration certification. Additionally, the MIB press release is not retrospective in nature and shall not be applicable to ongoing advertisements currently. The new advertisements (which are to be published after 18 June, 2024 whether made prior to 18 June or made after 18 June) would require a self-declaration certificate.

    Conclusion

    Celebrity endorsements offer increased brand visibility, credibility, and influence over consumer behaviour, often affecting sales and revenue of the brand in relation to the product/service advertised. However, legal liabilities arise if endorsements are misleading, as per several guidelines, statutes and judicial precedents. The recent Patanjali judgment highlights the responsibility of both advertisers and endorsers in combating misleading advertisements. The court’s stance on the liability of celebrities and social media influencers for endorsing misleading ads underscores the importance of ethical advertising practices and prioritizes consumer welfare. The order in this case, therefore, may widen the ambit of liability for endorsers such as celebrities or influencers, and thereby, result in greater due diligence required by such endorsers, to avoid falling foul of the law. The supreme court’s directive requiring self-declaration certificates from advertisers and advertising agency before airing advertisements on all modes is a measure to combat misleading advertisements and safeguard consumer interest, however, it shall increase the burden of compliance for various companies and brands engaging in advertisements. Lack of proper monitoring mechanism for such compliance especially for a vast space like digital media, it would be interesting to see how the ministries would ensure adherence of the directives by the advertisers and advertising agencies.

    Mukherjee is a senior associate and Verma is an associate with law firm ANM Global. The views expressed in this article are entirely their own and Indiantelevision.com need not subscribe to them.

  • Supreme Court to hold final hearing in NTO 2.0 case today

    Supreme Court to hold final hearing in NTO 2.0 case today

    Mumbai: The Supreme Court is all set to hold the final hearing in the NTO 2.0 case on Tuesday. The matter pertains to a bunch of petitions filed against the Bombay high court order regarding the implementation of the New Tariff Order (NTO) 2.0 issued by the telecom regulator.

    After a legal tussle that lasted over a year, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) had managed to get a green signal from the Bombay high court on 30 June on the implementation of the amended NTO 2.0. The division bench of Bombay HC had upheld the constitutional validity of NTO 2.0, but partly struck down the second provision of the twin conditions as “arbitrary”. As per the second provision, the a-la-carte rates of each pay channel (MRP), forming part of a bouquet, shall in no case exceed three times the average rate of a pay channel of the bouquet of which such pay channel is a part.

    The Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), an umbrella organisation of private TV broadcasters and a couple of other private channels had moved the SC in July against the Bombay high court judgment which had upheld the constitutionality of the NTO 2.0.

    The NTO 2.0 passed in January 2020 seeks to cap the pay channel price at Rs 12 from the existing Rs 19.

    Earlier this month, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) moved the deadline for implementation of NTO 2.0 to 1 April 2022 from 1 December 2021. Distribution platforms like DTH and cable will have to seek subscriber choice till 31 March 2022. 

    As per Trai, broadcasters will have to publish new reference interconnection offers (RIOs) to Trai by 31 December, and simultaneously publish the required information about channel and bouquet offerings and their MRPs on their websites. Broadcasters who have already submitted their RIOs in compliance with NTO 2.0 can revise it by 31 December, it said.

  • SC posts the final hearing on NTO 2.0 to 30 November

    SC posts the final hearing on NTO 2.0 to 30 November

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court has posted the final hearing on a bunch of petitions filed against the Bombay HC order regarding the implementation of the New Tariff Order (NTO) 2.0 to 30 November. In the meantime, the court has also asked the Counsel of all parties to file their written submissions before 12 November.

    When the matter was last taken up for hearing on Friday, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi appearing on behalf of the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF) put forward brief arguments based on the rejoinder filed previously by the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF). However, due to paucity of time, the arguments could not be concluded.

    The Indian Broadcasting Foundation, an umbrella organisation of private TV broadcasters and a couple of other private channels had moved the SC in July against the Bombay high court judgment which had upheld the constitutionality of the NTO 2.0. According to the broadcasters, the new tariff order “impinges” on the broadcasters’ fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution

    The NTO 2.0 passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) in January 2020 sought to cap the pay channel price at Rs 12 from the existing Rs 19. The move was vehemently opposed by the broadcasters, who challenged the order as “arbitrary and in violation of their fundamental right”, who moved the Bombay HC against its implementation.

    However, on 30 June, the Bombay HC had upheld the constitutional validity of NTO 2.0, but partly struck down the second provision of the twin conditions as “arbitrary”. As per the second provision, the a-la-carte rates of each pay channel (MRP), forming part of a bouquet, shall in no case exceed three times the average rate of a pay channel of the bouquet of which such pay channel is a part.

  • SC issues notice to TRAI in NTO 2.0 case

    SC issues notice to TRAI in NTO 2.0 case

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on the petitions filed by broadcasters against the Bombay high court judgment upholding the New Tariff Order (NTO) 2.0.

    The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose presided over the hearing. It has also directed TRAI to file its reply before the next date of hearing.

    On 30 June, the Bombay HC had upheld the constitutional validity of the NTO 2.0 while striking down one of the twin conditions relating to the average pricing of a channel in a bouquet terming it as ‘arbitrary’. The court had also extended interim relief to the broadcasters for six weeks, and asked the regulatory body not to take any coercive action against them in case of non-compliance.

    The judgment was challenged by the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), and several individual broadcasters including Zee, Sony, TV 18, Star India, and Film and Television Guild of India Ltd in the Supreme Court. On 6 August, the apex court asked them to get back to it with slimmer petitions and posted the matter for hearing on 18 August.

    Among other things, the New Tariff Order (NTO) 2.0 issued by TRAI in January, 2020 prescribed linkage between a-la-carte price and Bouquet and reduced the price cap on the subscription fees for pay channels. So, TV broadcasters can now include a channel in a pack only if it is priced at Rs 12 or less than that. Earlier, this limit was Rs. 19. According to broadcasters, NTO 2.0 is ‘violative of their fundamental right’, and could prove detrimental to the overall sectoral growth.

    The matter is next listed on 7 September for consideration of stay on NTO 2.0.

  • SC to hear Centre’s plea on new IT Rules on 16 July

    SC to hear Centre’s plea on new IT Rules on 16 July

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the proceedings in connection with petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s new IT rules before various high courts.

    The Centre had approached the apex court on Tuesday seeking transfer of all pending pleas challenging its new IT rules to itself, and had also sought a stay on the proceedings in various courts. However, the bench said that it will not pass any order as of now, except tagging the transfer petition with the said special leave petition (SLPs).

    The Court will now hear the Centre’s plea on 16 July along with a pending matter related to the regulation of over-the-top (OTT) platforms. 

    Numerous petitions challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are currently pending in various high courts across the country.

    The new rules notified on 25 February, came into effect on 26 May recommend a three-tier mechanism for the regulation of all online media. According to the new IT Rules, social media and streaming companies will be required to take down contentious content quicker, appoint grievance redressal officers and assist in investigations. The rules also seek to regulate the functioning of online media portals and publishers, over-the-top (OTT) platforms and social media intermediaries.

    Some of the pleas pending before the Delhi high court have sought striking down of specific part of the IT Rules on the ground that it allegedly violates Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification and by setting up a parallel adjudicatory mechanism to be overseen by the officials of the executive and is ultra vires the IT Act.

  • SC asks Centre to create regulatory mechanism for electronic media

    SC asks Centre to create regulatory mechanism for electronic media

    New Delhi: Supreme Court asked the Centre to file a fresh affidavit dealing with mechanism to regulate electronic media under the Cable TV Network Act while hearing the pleas filed by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and others alleging that a section of the media was spreading communal hatred over Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the onset of pandemic. It also expressed displeasure over the Union government’s affidavit in the same case.

    A bench headed by CJI S A Bobde said that the Centre should consider setting up a regulatory mechanism to deal with such content on TV. It sought to know from the Centre about mechanisms available for it under the Cable TV Network Regulation Act.

    The apex court asked the government to create and apprise it of the mechanism. “We want to know as to what is the mechanism to deal with these contents on television. If there is no regulatory mechanism then you create one. Regulation cannot be left to organisation like NBSA.”

    Solicitor general Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Centre replied that it has ample powers to regulate contents of TV channels but takes a very cautious approach, as right to free speech as a fundamental right is available to media.

    The court then asked the solicitor general to create a mechanism for addressing grievances against fake news circulated by TV channels and media, if none such is available currently. “What is shown in TV channels is of great consequences for the country,” it said.

    The ministry of information and broadcasting, in its affidavit filed on 13 November, had informed the Supreme Court that the petition against communal reporting of Tablighi Jamaat incident was based on "vague assertions" and news reports published by certain fact check websites, and the same cannot be relied upon to contend that entire media was spreading communal disharmony.

    The plea before the top court sought directions to the Centre to stop dissemination of fake news and take strict action against the section of the media spreading bigotry and communal hatred in relation to the incident.

  • The TRP fudging saga continues

    The TRP fudging saga continues

    NEW DELHI: The Mumbai police’s investigation into the alleged TRP manipulation fracas gathered pace over the weekend. If one were to stand outside the central police headquarters in Mumbai, it would have looked like a roll call of media hotshots was being taken.  

    Amongst those to go in were Republic TV CEO Vikas Khanchandani who was interrogated for more than nine hours about the network’s involvement, something the founder Arnab Goswami has vehemently denied, stating that it was TV Today which was indulging in TRP rigging. India Today has denied any such wrongdoing.

    The police had sent summons to Republic Bharat COO Harsh Bhandari;  COO- international revenue & distribution Priya Mukherjee; senior distribution executive Ghanshyam Singh, the CEO of Hansa Research Group Praveen Nijhara and another employee.  Madison founder Sam Balsara, IPG Mediabrands CEO Shashi Sinha also spent a large part of the day being questioned by the Mumbai police.

    Republic TV CFO Shiva Subramaniyam Sundaram, who had also been ordered to appear before the cops, declined, stating that he would available for questioning only after 14-15 October. He also said that he had requested the law enforcers to halt the probe until the company’s writ petition against the police’s actions is heard by the Supreme Court.

    Read more news on TRP Scandal

    Even as this piece is being written, six teams from the Mumbai police crime branch were further investigating if the malpractice of TRP rigging was being resorted in six states. Republic TV issued a press release stating that the Mumbai police repeatedly tried to find out from its executives how the network managed to get their hands on the Hansa Research filed complaint. It said it would not reveal its sources, citing editorial privilege.

    The Mumbai police stepped in to investigate the alleged scam after BARC’s people meter management vendor Hansa Research complained to it that the viewership sample had been compromised. Mumbai police chief Param Bir Singh then held a press conference, alleging that executives of three channels – Box Cinema TV, Fakt Marathi and Republic TV – gave financial inducements to members of BARC’s viewership panel to watch their shows, thus inflating their viewerships.

    Senior professionals, from the first two, were arrested and are cooling their heels behind bars since the allegations were hurled on 9 October.

    Goswami has all along being insisting that Republic TV’s name was not even there in the Hansa complaint, it was TV Today which was mentioned several times, he said. He has  also alleged that the Mumbai police chief is attacking his network at the insistence of the Maharashtra government for continuing to investigate the Sushant Singh Rajput “murder” and several other acts of negligence by it and the city’s law enforcers.

    Over the weekend, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology chaired by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor also mentioned that it will be taking up the issue. It has asked representatives of the News Broadcasters Association, Press Council of India and Prasar Bharati to depose on the subject of 'ethical standards in media coverage.’

    Earlier during the week, Mumbai Police had arrested four people including Bompalli Rao Mistry, the alleged mastermind behind the scandal. Mistry will remain in the police custody until 13 October.

  • Supreme Court refuses transfer of FIRs against Arnab Goswami to CBI

    Supreme Court refuses transfer of FIRs against Arnab Goswami to CBI

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the FIRs filed against Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami. They are currently being investigation by the Mumbai Police. The apex court also refused to quash the FIR lodged against him in connection with his statements made recently on the Palghar mob-lynching case.

    The SC bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, however, quashed the multiple FIRs lodged against Goswami in several states, which accused him of using hate speech, derogatory language against Congress president Sonia Gandhi.

    On 11 May the top court had reserved its verdict on two of his petitions. They also directed that no coercive action should be taken against Goswami in the fresh FIR lodged by the Mumbai Police.

    Earlier, Goswami had claimed in the court that he was interrogated by Mumbai Police for more than 12 hours concerning an FIR on alleged defamatory statements. He claimed that one of the two investigating officers who were probing the case has tested positive for Covid2019.

    Also, the Maharashtra government had moved the apex court alleging that Goswami has been misusing protection granted by the top court.

    During the hearing, senior advocate Harish Salve, who is representing Goswami, had argued that this case is all about a certain political party targeting a journalist. He mentioned that the complainants are members of one particular party.

    Meanwhile, Goswami's interim protection from arrest has been extended for another three weeks. During this time period Goswami can seek an appropriate remedy.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

  • Supreme Court notice on PIL against media companies for sacking employees

    Supreme Court notice on PIL against media companies for sacking employees

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice on a petition filed against multiple media organisations, which have retrenched, laid off or forced their employees to take a pay cut on the back of the nation-wide lockdown to check on the spread of novel Covid-2019 pandemic.

    A bench comprising justices NV Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and BR Gavai has sought responses from the central government, the India Newspapers Society and the News Broadcasters Association while expressing concern over the alleged termination of the employees of media organisations.

    “Some serious issues have been raised and it requires a hearing, moreover, the petitioners have not approached any other authority for the same reliefs,” observed the apex court. “Other unions also say the same thing, the question is, if the business does not start, how long will people sustain?”

    The petition filed by National Alliance Of Journalists, Delhi Union Of Journalists, and BrihanMumbai Union Of Journalists has accused media organisations of inhuman and illegal treatment being meted out by employers to their employees and workers in the media sector.

    The petition reads: “The employers (news channels, print media including news websites and digital news platforms) have issued termination notices, imposing steep wage cuts unilaterally, sending workers and employees on indefinite unpaid leave, and so on, taking the excuse of the nation-wide lockdown imposed in light of the spread of Covid-2019.”  

    The petition signed by NAJ president SK Pande, BUJ general-secretary Indra Kumar Jain, and DUJ general secretary Sujata Madhok has sought the suspension of all orders of termination, salary cuts or resignations asked from employees during the period of the lockdown.

    “Despite the appeals made by the prime minister of India and advisories issued by the government of India to not terminate services or reduce employees’ wages, several employers/establishments in the newspaper and media sector have taken unilateral knee-jerk decisions to terminate services, reduce wages and also send employees on forced indefinite unpaid leave,” reads the petition.

    The petitioners have also listed some instances — The Indian Express asking staff to take salary cuts, News Nation terminating services of 16 employees of its English digital team, The Times of India sacking its entire Sunday magazine team, The Quint asking 45 members of its team to go on leave without pay and Bloomberg Quint indicating steep salary cuts for the month of April.

    The central government has imposed a nation-wide lockdown till 3 May to check on the rising cases of the Covid-2019 virus while giving an exception to the essential service category. Media has also been added under the essential service category.