ITV

Category: Supreme Court

  • SC refuses to stay demonetisation

    SC refuses to stay demonetisation

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday refused to stay the Central Government’s notification demonetising Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes but asked it to enlist the measures to minimise public inconvenience. It asked the Centre to take immediate steps to alleviate the hardships of the common man. “Discontinuing of higher denomination notes appears to be carpet bombing, and not a surgical strike,” the court said.

    The apex court was hearing a bunch of petitions demanding the rollback of the decision to scrap old notes. Without issuing any notice to the RBI or the Centre, the apex court posted the matter for further hearing on 25 November. “We will not be granting any stay,” a bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and DY Chandrachud said. The remarks were made after some advocates insisted on a stay.

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, however, said he was not seeking a stay on the notification but seeking answers from the government about the steps taken to lessen public inconvenience. The bench asked attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi to file an affidavit about the measures already undertaken by the government and the Reserve Bank of India to minimise public inconvenience and the steps likely to be taken in future.

    The Centre, which had filed a caveat in the matter, sought dismissal of the petitions challenging demonetisation on several grounds including that they were “misconceived”. Rohatgi outlined the idea behind demonetisation and said large number of counterfeit currency has been used to finance terrorism in various parts of the country including in Jammu and Kashmir and northeastern states.

    Rohatgi informed the bench that Rs 3.25 lakh crore were deposited in the banks since 10 November, and Rs 11 lakh crore would be added in the next few days. He also said there were as many as 24 crore bank accounts including 22 crore opened under the ‘Jan Dhan Scheme’, and the Centre was hopeful to “ramp up” the outflow of the cash to banks, post offices and two lakh ATMs across the country.

  • SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today upheld the contention by Prasar Bharati that enhancements embedded in the sports feed shared by sports channels with Doordarshan were commercial advertisements.

    Rejecting a special leave petition by Star India against a Delhi High Court order which had gone in favour of Prasar Bharati, The apex Court also held that the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007 (Sports Act) is not only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider but also those of the content rights owner and holder.

    The Court said the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act refers to the the content rights owners, holder and broadcast service provider. Therefore it was immaterial as to who inserted the enhancements. Under the Act the signal to be provided had to be free of advertisements.

    The Sports Act is clear that live signals of sporting events of national importance have to be shared by the content rights owners or holders and broadcast service providers with Prasar Bharati without advertisements. Furthermore, a clean feed is to be provided.

    Prasar Bharati in its petition in the High Court had claimed that the feed being provided contained commercial enhancements. But Star took the plea that the commercial enhancements were not advertisements and the enhancements were in any case being inserted by International Cricket Council.

    Star also said the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Act was only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider (Star) and not those of the content rights owner (ICC). It claimed that the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act only referred to the broadcast service provider and not the content rights owner.

    While senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had appeared for Star Sports, Prasar Bharati was represented by Attorney General Mukul Rohatagi.

    Taking up the case in Febuary last year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Prafulla C Pant had said ‘we are of the view that the interim order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated 4 February of the High Court shall remain suspended should continue until further orders.’

    The Court had at that time said it was ‘not inclined’ to consider the suggestion made by Star Sports that Doordarshan should set up an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time.

    On the second suggestion about ‘putting up a scroll to the effect that ‘the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan’, the Court said ‘acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 in a particular manner which is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. We, therefore, decline to accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents.’

    Star India had in an additional affidavit at the time said that it was losing around Rs 290 crore every year by sharing its sports signals with Doordarshan and was expecting to lose around Rs 120 crore by sharing the telecast of the World Cup this year. (Under the Sports Act, the rights holder gets 75 per cent of the revenue from the telecast on DD which keeps the balance 25 per cent.)

    The Delhi High Court had declined to set aside the must carry clause as well as the Sports Act in its judgment.

  • SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    SC rejects Star appeal on sharing sports signals with DD

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today upheld the contention by Prasar Bharati that enhancements embedded in the sports feed shared by sports channels with Doordarshan were commercial advertisements.

    Rejecting a special leave petition by Star India against a Delhi High Court order which had gone in favour of Prasar Bharati, The apex Court also held that the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007 (Sports Act) is not only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider but also those of the content rights owner and holder.

    The Court said the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act refers to the the content rights owners, holder and broadcast service provider. Therefore it was immaterial as to who inserted the enhancements. Under the Act the signal to be provided had to be free of advertisements.

    The Sports Act is clear that live signals of sporting events of national importance have to be shared by the content rights owners or holders and broadcast service providers with Prasar Bharati without advertisements. Furthermore, a clean feed is to be provided.

    Prasar Bharati in its petition in the High Court had claimed that the feed being provided contained commercial enhancements. But Star took the plea that the commercial enhancements were not advertisements and the enhancements were in any case being inserted by International Cricket Council.

    Star also said the prohibition in Section 3 of the Sports Act was only against advertisements of the broadcast service provider (Star) and not those of the content rights owner (ICC). It claimed that the word ‘its’ in Section 3 of the Act only referred to the broadcast service provider and not the content rights owner.

    While senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had appeared for Star Sports, Prasar Bharati was represented by Attorney General Mukul Rohatagi.

    Taking up the case in Febuary last year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Prafulla C Pant had said ‘we are of the view that the interim order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated 4 February of the High Court shall remain suspended should continue until further orders.’

    The Court had at that time said it was ‘not inclined’ to consider the suggestion made by Star Sports that Doordarshan should set up an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time.

    On the second suggestion about ‘putting up a scroll to the effect that ‘the channel displaying the sports event (concerned ICC World Cup 2015 matches) is meant only for Doordarshan’, the Court said ‘acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 in a particular manner which is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. We, therefore, decline to accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents.’

    Star India had in an additional affidavit at the time said that it was losing around Rs 290 crore every year by sharing its sports signals with Doordarshan and was expecting to lose around Rs 120 crore by sharing the telecast of the World Cup this year. (Under the Sports Act, the rights holder gets 75 per cent of the revenue from the telecast on DD which keeps the balance 25 per cent.)

    The Delhi High Court had declined to set aside the must carry clause as well as the Sports Act in its judgment.

  • SC: States expected to set up bodies to monitor govt. ads, raps Delhi govt.

    SC: States expected to set up bodies to monitor govt. ads, raps Delhi govt.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said it expected all government “functionaries to rise to the occasion” and to act in the matter of publication of Government advertisements with “utmost responsibility to ensure that such advertisements carry the right message to the citizens and do not glorify and/or personify any particular individual presently in the helm of affairs of the Union or the State.”

    Dismissing a contempt petition by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, the court said the impact and importance of a government advertisement cannot be lost on the functionaries of the Union as well as the State.

    The court expressed confidence that in future advertisements of states, union territories or the Union of India, the “purpose” of government advertisements as dealt with in its judgment “shall be kept in mind and the advertisements will be published in the true spirit in which they are required to be so published.”

    Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justice P C Ghosh said in their recent judgment that the “spirit” of the judgment of 13 May 2015 relating to government advertising “would require the states to also constitute their respective committees which shall now be done.”

    The court added: “If the states so desire the committee constituted at the central level referred to in the affidavit of the Union of India may be entrusted with the task of overseeing the publication of advertisements in the states”.

    The judges said the judgment had “clearly laid down that the committee constituted would be responsible for ironing out the creases that may show from time to time in the implementation of the directions of the court and also to oversee such implementation. In the event it becomes so necessary and the committee, for any reasons, is unable to render effective and meaningful service it is always open for an aggrieved party or a conscious citizen to approach this court once again.”

    Noting that “we do not think it necessary to do so at this stage”, the judges rejected the argument by counsel Prashant Bhushan that the committee suggested by the court should be armed with further powers.

    The Court also noted that the government affidavit showed that the three-member committee has been constituted consisting of the persons mentioned in the body of the affidavit. In fact, the first meeting of the committee has been held on 18 April 2016.

    (A three-member committee headed by former chief election commissioner B B Tandon was set up on 6 April. The other members are News Broadcasters Association president and editor-in-chief of India TV Rajat Sharma, and Ogilvy & Mather executive chairman and creative director for South Asia Piyush Pandey)

    Referring to the allegations about the publication of advertisements by Tamil Nadu, the court said that the affidavit of the chief secretary to the state government showed that the advertisements published by the state do not carry the photograph of the chief minister and the advertisements which do carry the photograph of the chief minister were so published by the Indian Express, New Delhi Edition and funded by the said group and not by the state. Therefore, the judges said “we do not consider it necessary to pursue the matter any further”.

    As far as allegations about advertisements of Delhi government belittling other political parties went, the court said “a reading of the advertisements in question published by the government of NCT of Delhi would go to show that some portions of the same have been somewhat inarticulately drafted and there is room for improvement.”

  • SC: States expected to set up bodies to monitor govt. ads, raps Delhi govt.

    SC: States expected to set up bodies to monitor govt. ads, raps Delhi govt.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said it expected all government “functionaries to rise to the occasion” and to act in the matter of publication of Government advertisements with “utmost responsibility to ensure that such advertisements carry the right message to the citizens and do not glorify and/or personify any particular individual presently in the helm of affairs of the Union or the State.”

    Dismissing a contempt petition by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, the court said the impact and importance of a government advertisement cannot be lost on the functionaries of the Union as well as the State.

    The court expressed confidence that in future advertisements of states, union territories or the Union of India, the “purpose” of government advertisements as dealt with in its judgment “shall be kept in mind and the advertisements will be published in the true spirit in which they are required to be so published.”

    Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justice P C Ghosh said in their recent judgment that the “spirit” of the judgment of 13 May 2015 relating to government advertising “would require the states to also constitute their respective committees which shall now be done.”

    The court added: “If the states so desire the committee constituted at the central level referred to in the affidavit of the Union of India may be entrusted with the task of overseeing the publication of advertisements in the states”.

    The judges said the judgment had “clearly laid down that the committee constituted would be responsible for ironing out the creases that may show from time to time in the implementation of the directions of the court and also to oversee such implementation. In the event it becomes so necessary and the committee, for any reasons, is unable to render effective and meaningful service it is always open for an aggrieved party or a conscious citizen to approach this court once again.”

    Noting that “we do not think it necessary to do so at this stage”, the judges rejected the argument by counsel Prashant Bhushan that the committee suggested by the court should be armed with further powers.

    The Court also noted that the government affidavit showed that the three-member committee has been constituted consisting of the persons mentioned in the body of the affidavit. In fact, the first meeting of the committee has been held on 18 April 2016.

    (A three-member committee headed by former chief election commissioner B B Tandon was set up on 6 April. The other members are News Broadcasters Association president and editor-in-chief of India TV Rajat Sharma, and Ogilvy & Mather executive chairman and creative director for South Asia Piyush Pandey)

    Referring to the allegations about the publication of advertisements by Tamil Nadu, the court said that the affidavit of the chief secretary to the state government showed that the advertisements published by the state do not carry the photograph of the chief minister and the advertisements which do carry the photograph of the chief minister were so published by the Indian Express, New Delhi Edition and funded by the said group and not by the state. Therefore, the judges said “we do not consider it necessary to pursue the matter any further”.

    As far as allegations about advertisements of Delhi government belittling other political parties went, the court said “a reading of the advertisements in question published by the government of NCT of Delhi would go to show that some portions of the same have been somewhat inarticulately drafted and there is room for improvement.”

  • Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    New Delhi: In a reversal of its own judgment of 13 May last year, the Supreme Court today allowed the use of photographs of governors, chief ministers and ministers in government advertisements.

    The apex Court gave the judgment on a batch of petitions filed by the Centre and various states seeking a review relating to photos of politicians on government advertisements.

    The Court had in May last year given a direction on a public interest petition that only photographs of the Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice of India can be published in official media advertisements and not those of chief ministers. But the personal approval of these three authorities will be necessary before publication.

    The Centre in its petition argued that it is for the government to decide whose photographs should be published and what the content of advertisements should be. It said the court should refrain from interfering in such policy matters.

    The Centre also said barring photos of chief ministers on advertisements was against the federal structure.

    Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant who had passed the original directions said in September that the review petitions will be heard in open court.

    Prior to the order relating to hearing in open court, the judges perused the petitions of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, and Assam in the chamber.

    The four states filed the review petitions challenging direction as being discriminatory and erroneous since it has permitted the photograph of the Prime Minister but not the chief ministers who too are elected representatives of the people.

    The states pointed out that the expert panel had recommended display of photos of CMs/governors as well but the Court had restrained the states from displaying photos of CMs/governors.

    The petitions had said: “There is nothing wrong if the publication issued by the government highlighting the achievements of the government contains photographs of the chief minister and the other ministers if they have made contribution to the achievements of the state government. The judgment is completely silent regarding the exclusion of the chief minister who is the head of the state government. If the photograph of the prime minister is permitted on the publication/advertisement then the photographs of the chief minister must have also been permitted by this court.”

    The original public interest litigations (PIL) filed by the NGOs Common Cause represented by counsel Meera Bhatia and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan had urged the apex Court to frame guidelines.

    Holding that taxpayers’ money cannot be spent to build “personality cults” of political leaders, the Court in May last had restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders or prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.

    The Court had said such photos divert attention from the policies of the government, unnecessarily associate an individual with a government project, and pave the way for cultivating a “personality cult”.

    The observations of the Court were based on examination of the findings of a Committee led by Bangalore’s National Law University Director N.S. Madhava Menon set up in May last year which had submitted its report in October.

    The Committee had been set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry pursuant to an order of 23 April 2014. Other members were former Lok Sabha Secretary General T K Vishwanathan, and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar. Mr Bimal Julka, then Secretary in the I and B Ministry, was the member Secretary of the Committee.  

  • Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    Supreme Court allows photos of Governors, CMs and Ministers permitted in Government ads, in review of earlier order

    New Delhi: In a reversal of its own judgment of 13 May last year, the Supreme Court today allowed the use of photographs of governors, chief ministers and ministers in government advertisements.

    The apex Court gave the judgment on a batch of petitions filed by the Centre and various states seeking a review relating to photos of politicians on government advertisements.

    The Court had in May last year given a direction on a public interest petition that only photographs of the Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice of India can be published in official media advertisements and not those of chief ministers. But the personal approval of these three authorities will be necessary before publication.

    The Centre in its petition argued that it is for the government to decide whose photographs should be published and what the content of advertisements should be. It said the court should refrain from interfering in such policy matters.

    The Centre also said barring photos of chief ministers on advertisements was against the federal structure.

    Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant who had passed the original directions said in September that the review petitions will be heard in open court.

    Prior to the order relating to hearing in open court, the judges perused the petitions of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, and Assam in the chamber.

    The four states filed the review petitions challenging direction as being discriminatory and erroneous since it has permitted the photograph of the Prime Minister but not the chief ministers who too are elected representatives of the people.

    The states pointed out that the expert panel had recommended display of photos of CMs/governors as well but the Court had restrained the states from displaying photos of CMs/governors.

    The petitions had said: “There is nothing wrong if the publication issued by the government highlighting the achievements of the government contains photographs of the chief minister and the other ministers if they have made contribution to the achievements of the state government. The judgment is completely silent regarding the exclusion of the chief minister who is the head of the state government. If the photograph of the prime minister is permitted on the publication/advertisement then the photographs of the chief minister must have also been permitted by this court.”

    The original public interest litigations (PIL) filed by the NGOs Common Cause represented by counsel Meera Bhatia and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan had urged the apex Court to frame guidelines.

    Holding that taxpayers’ money cannot be spent to build “personality cults” of political leaders, the Court in May last had restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders or prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.

    The Court had said such photos divert attention from the policies of the government, unnecessarily associate an individual with a government project, and pave the way for cultivating a “personality cult”.

    The observations of the Court were based on examination of the findings of a Committee led by Bangalore’s National Law University Director N.S. Madhava Menon set up in May last year which had submitted its report in October.

    The Committee had been set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry pursuant to an order of 23 April 2014. Other members were former Lok Sabha Secretary General T K Vishwanathan, and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar. Mr Bimal Julka, then Secretary in the I and B Ministry, was the member Secretary of the Committee.  

  • Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Government got a fillip with the Supreme Court saying that Bombay High Court order did not imply a pan-India stay of digital addressable systems, 26 more multi-system operators got registration in the third week last month and took the total number to 753 including 231 which have permanent (ten-year licences) by 26 February.

    The last list issued on 17 February had put the total at 727 including the 231 which have permanent (ten-year) licences. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had by 12 January cancelled the licences of 26 MSOs and closed their cases. According to the list issued today, the areas of operation of some of the MSOs have been revised or amended.

    The new licencees have all got state-wise licences and none has got a pan-India licence. These are from Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Utar Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal.

    With the Home Ministry directive about doing away with security clearances for MSOs not being communicated in writing to the MIB, the pace remains slow.

    The permanent licence issued to Kal Cable of Chennai had been cancelled on 20 August, 2014 but this cancellation was set aside by Madras High Court on 5 September the same year. However, Kal Cable’s name continues to be in the cancelled list – presumably because the cases are still pending.

    Sources said many MSOs holding provisional licences had not completed certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

     

  • Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    Total number of MSO provisional licence holders rises to 522, taking total to over 750

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Government got a fillip with the Supreme Court saying that Bombay High Court order did not imply a pan-India stay of digital addressable systems, 26 more multi-system operators got registration in the third week last month and took the total number to 753 including 231 which have permanent (ten-year licences) by 26 February.

    The last list issued on 17 February had put the total at 727 including the 231 which have permanent (ten-year) licences. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had by 12 January cancelled the licences of 26 MSOs and closed their cases. According to the list issued today, the areas of operation of some of the MSOs have been revised or amended.

    The new licencees have all got state-wise licences and none has got a pan-India licence. These are from Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Utar Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal.

    With the Home Ministry directive about doing away with security clearances for MSOs not being communicated in writing to the MIB, the pace remains slow.

    The permanent licence issued to Kal Cable of Chennai had been cancelled on 20 August, 2014 but this cancellation was set aside by Madras High Court on 5 September the same year. However, Kal Cable’s name continues to be in the cancelled list – presumably because the cases are still pending.

    Sources said many MSOs holding provisional licences had not completed certain formalities relating to shareholders and so on.

     

  • SC declines to crush TDSAT order that HITS players be treated at par with pan-India MSOs

    SC declines to crush TDSAT order that HITS players be treated at par with pan-India MSOs

    NEW DELHI: In an order that will not only have far-reaching consequences for broadcasters but may encourage others to take the headend-in-the-sky (HITS) route, the Supreme Court today rejected the challenge to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) view that HITS players should be treated at the same level as pan-India multi-system operators (MSOs). 

    The Tribunal had on 7 December last mandated that the reference interconnect order would be the starting point for negotiations between them and the distribution platforms. 

    The apex court decided the matter after hearing both sides on the issues raised.

    The appeal had been filed by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Star India and Taj TV after a similar appeal had earlier on 22 Januarybeen dismissed in the Delhi High Court as not maintainable on the ground that the broadcaster had an alternative remedy of appealing in the Supreme Court.

    The Tribunal had said, “It is difficult to see a HITS operator as different from a pan-India MSO and in our considered view a HITS operator, in regard to the commercial terms for an interconnect arrangement has to be taken at par with a pan-India MSO and must, therefore, receive the same treatment.” 

    The broadcasters had contended that the Tribunal through its order dated 7 December had completely taken away the freedom of contract. They also contended that the Tribunal had crossed its jurisdiction by passing an order on the TRAI regulation.

    The High Court had said that it did not feel the need to examine whether TDSAT had the jurisdiction to direct broadcasters to treat the HITS operator Noida Software Technology Park Ltd (NSTPL) at the same level as pan-India MSOs.

    That Court had heard arguments presented by Star India and NSTPL, whose petition had been accepted on 7 December by the Tribunal, which had asked Star India and Taj TV to execute fresh agreements with NSTPL. However, TDSAT had kept the operation of the judgment pending till 31 March this year.

    It had said that on past occasions as well similar suggestions were made with the hope of nudging the TRAI to take proactive steps to reduce the scope of disputes arising out of the regulations. “At the same time, the fact that regulatory intervention may be the ideal way forward cannot and should not be an excuse for this Tribunal to shirk the interpretative issues that have come before us. This is particularly so when there appears to be regulatory inertia,” TDSAT had said.

    The Tribunal had, on 18 December, impleaded Zee Turner and others in another petition by Star India against NSTPL and asked the broadcasters to produce the agreements between the broadcasters and major MSOs. It opined that some agreements have to be suspended by Star and Taj TV. 

    Though the TDSAT petition had been filed by NSTPL, it will also help Hinduja Group’s HITS platform NXT Digital, which entered into the fray last year. 

    TDSAT had directed Star and Taj, as well as the other broadcasters who had joined the proceedings as intervenors, to issue fresh RIOs in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations, as explained in the judgment within one month from the date this order becomes operational and effective. It will be then open to NSTPL to execute fresh interconnect agreements with Star and Taj, and with any other broadcasters on the basis of their respective RIOs or on negotiated terms within the limits.