Category: Supreme Court

SC guidelines on govt ads might impact TV channels

MUMBAI: Television channel and newspaper sales execs may be in for a bit of a shocker. Those gigantic ads and long running TVCs by state governments featuring Chief Ministers and other local political leaders mug shots tom-tomming their and their political parties’ achievements could well dry up.

The reason: the Supreme Court (SC) today issued guidelines relating to Central government advertising, which are put out using public money. The guidelines clearly forbid the use of photographs of chief ministers, government bureaucrats and appointees and other political leaders in government ads. They however permit the use of the photographs of the President, the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, departed leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi in these ads.

The apex court however refrained from disallowing the government to issue public advertisements six months prior to an election. It added that governments can’t be allowed to use public money for unproductive purposes like giving advertisements for political gains.

Industry experts believe that the Supreme Court guidelines could impact the revenues of some media groups.

A media observer tells Indiantelevision.com, “Local state governments, from time to time, release boastful ads and TVCs featuring their CMs in newspapers and on TV channels as a bit of a quid pro quo for favourable coverage and positioning of the parties and their representatives in the media. I don’t think any state CM will allow the ad expenditure if it does not feature him or her, because they tend to use it to build their own image.”

Another expert opines that it is quite likely that the media managers could well divert government ad spending toward social and mobile media as the SC restrictions do not apply to them – at least as yet. This could be in the form of viral campaigns both as videos, and textual posts.

Watch this space for further news.

May 13, 2015
Bollywood slammed for barring women make-up artists despite order

NEW DELHI: Slamming gender discrimination against women in Bollywood, the Supreme Court demanded to know why its directive of 10 November, 2014 quashing a bylaw of the Costume and Make-Up Artists and Hair Dresser Association had not been followed.

However, the Court was assured that Association had accepted the application of Charu Khurana and would issue her a membership card in due course, making her the first member of the male-dominated make-up fraternity.

Until now, women were only allowed to work as hairstylists and the work of make-up was left to men.

“Such shocking discrimination on the basis of gender is violative of constitutional values. Earlier, the fee (for association membership) was only Rs 5,000 and now you are asking for Rs 1 lakh. These are clearly ways to keep women away even after our order quashing your discriminatory clause,” an angry Justice Dipak Misra told the association’s lawyer.

“The societal mindset must change. The male community in several spheres devises ways to keep women away from particular areas of employment,” Misra added.

The court was hearing a plea filed by a group of women make-up artists headed by Khurana, after they were refused admission by the make-up artists’ associations in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala.

Thirty-two-year-old Khurana, who lives in New Delhi, said women artists had to either abandon the profession or work illegally, often giving credit for their work to male colleagues so that the union of makeup artists would not find out.

After being fined Rs 25,000 for working on a Tamil movie, Khurana had sought legal recourse. The apex Court vindicated her stand by instructing the Maharashtra chapter of the Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association to allow women to take membership as makeup artists and without the need to hold a domicile certificate of Maharashtra, another prerequisite that prevented those from outside the state from working in Bollywood.

“The Supreme Court had directed the union to remove the clause pertaining to women and domicile within 10 days,” said Jotika Kalra, the lawyer who represented Khurana in the case.

For Khurana, the verdict was a vindication of her fight against the misogyny that she and other women artists have faced in the film industry, both in Bollywood and in southern India.

“We have to do makeup in vans, or in hotel rooms, because the union could raid the sets anytime and fine us. Our names never appear in the credits and there is always a male makeup artist on set, even though he may not be working,” Khurana said in an interview in November.

In the early years, Bollywood did not have too many women working behind the scenes. Men handled costumes and makeup and even played the role of women up until the 1950s because working in films was not considered an honourable profession.

Even after women started working in films, the union rules only allowed them to register as hairdressers, never as makeup artists, thus depriving them of rightful wages and the chance to expand their skills.

A makeup artist can earn anywhere between Rs 5,000 to Rs 25,000 a day, Khurana said, adding several qualified female artists had to turn away from the film industry and settle for weddings or other events because of the archaic rule.

In its arguments last year, the union boasted of 1,780 makeup artists in Maharashtra alone but said men had always been makeup artists and women always the hairdressers. “That’s just the way things were. We were not against women as such,” said Maharashtra chapter President Sharad Shelar had then said.

April 23, 2015
ED issues Rs 742.58 crore attachment order against Sun TV group’s Marans

MUMBAI: South Indian media baron Kalanidhi Maran and his brother, the former Union telecom minister Dayanidhi – scions of the powerful DMK party of Tamil Nadu – received a setback late last evening when India’s Enforcement Directorate issued an order to attach properties and assets worth Rs 742.58 crore belonging to them.

It also ordered that certain assets belong to Kalanithi’s wife Kaveri be attached. The order was issued following investigation by the agency under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, says an ED release, and was in relation to an alleged illegal gratification of the same amount Dayanidhi received in the Aircel-Maxis case when he was telecom minister.

The entire money laundering investigation is being done under the eagle eye of the Supreme Court and the ED’s Deputy Director Rajeshwar Singh under the Headquarter Investigation Unit (HIU).

The ED had tweeted earlier in the day that the “ED HIU attaches under PMLA FDs, land & building,shares of Maran brothers worth Rs 742.58 crores in #Aircel-Maxis case.”

Dayanidhi was chargesheeted in that case by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 2011 for coercing Aircel owner C. Sivasankaran during his term as telecom minister (in 2006) to sell his stake to Maxis which is owned by ageing Malaysian billionaire Tatparanandam Ananda Krishnan. In return for that companies in Mauritius transferred Rs 742.58 crore allegedly for Dayanidhi into Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd (SDTPL) and South Asia FM Ltd (SAFL)

The EDs investigation revealed that SDTPL is promoted by Kalanithi Maran and Kaveri Kalanithi and they own 80 per cent of its shares. The shareholders of SAFL are Sun TV Network (60 per cent) and 20 per cent each are A.H. Multisoft Pvt Ltd and South Asia Multimedia Technologies Ltd., Mauritius. Kalanithi also holds 75 per cent of Sun TV Network Limited, while he and his wife own 90 per cent and 10 per cent respectively of Kal Comm Pvt. Ltd.

The ED order has attached the following under the PMLA:

* Fixed deposits held by Dayanidhi Maran and others – Rs. 7.47 Crore
* Fixed deposits held by SDTPL – Rs. 31.34 Crore.
* Fixed deposits held by SAFL – Rs. 6.19 Crore
* Mutual Funds held by SAFL – Rs.15.14 Crore.
* Fixed Deposit held by Kalanithi Maran – Rs 100 Crore.
* Mutual Funds held by Kalanithi Maran – Rs. 2.78 Crores.
* Fixed Deposit held by Kaveri Kalanithi – Rs 1.30 Crore.
* Mutual Funds held by Kaveri Kalanithi – Rs. 1.78 Crore.
* Land and Building owned by Kal Comm Private Limited – Rs. 171.55 Crores
* Free Hold Land and Building owned by Sun Network TV Pvt. Ltd – Rs. 266 Crore.
* Shares of SDTPL held by Kalanithi Maran – Rs. 139 Crore.

The Marans have 120 days to appeal against the ED order.

April 1, 2015
Two lawyers issued notice for anti-women remarks on ‘India’s Daughter’

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today asked the two advocates representing the 16 December gangrape convicts to respond to the charges that they allegedly made derogatory remarks against women in a BBC documentary India’s Daughter by Leslee Udwin.

Justices V Gopala Gowda and C Nagappan issued notices to the two advocates M L Sharma and A P Singh and sought their response in two weeks following a petition by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association.

“We have heard the argument, pleadings and grievances urged in the petition. The matter requires consideration in view of the factual and legal submissions,” the Court said.

The Association had sought restriction on the entry of the two advocates in the apex court premises, alleging that their remarks in the controversial documentary were “inhumane, scandalous, unjustifiable, biased, outrageous, ill-minded” and are a “direct affront to and in violation of the dignity of women,” especially those practicing in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) supported the plea of Women Lawyers association.

Senior advocate Vibha Datta Makhija representing the Women’s Association urged the Court to lead from the front and show zero tolerance for such views. “We need an environment where we are fearless,” she said and added that the two advocates need to be sensitised.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for SCBA, submitted that there should be a meaningful and proper implementation of gender sensitisation regulation. He said, “SCBA has taken a unanimous decision to take action against Sharma.”

The petition had sought protection of fundamental rights, guaranteed under the Constitution, of the female advocates practicing in the apex court to work with dignity and without any gender bias.

The petition filed through advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani has made Chairperson of Gender Sensitisation Committee and Registrar of the apex court as parties and submitted a transcript of the two lawyers’ comments.

It also sought the court’s direction to make Sharma and Singh issue a public apology in the media for holding and making public views, which are “absolutely derogatory to the dignity of women” and refraining from issuing such statements in future. The two advocates also be directed to retract their statements and their apology should also be included in the BBC documentary, the petition had said.

The Association represented by secretary Prerna Kumari had said in the petition that the remarks made by the two advocates showed they do not have respect for any woman and do not see them as more than an object. It had added that the conduct of these lawyers showed complete absence of any concern for society and utter disregard of the Constitutional values and human rights of women besides the ethics and etiquette of the Bar.

The petition said the lawyers should retract their statements and their apology should be included in the BBC documentary.

It had added that the conduct of these lawyers showed complete absence of any concern for society and utter disregard of the Constitutional values and human rights of women besides the ethics and etiquette of the Bar. It is much more than a crime, the petition said.

Although it has been banned in India and NDTV could not screen the film as slated on 8 March, it continues to be available on the Internet and has been aired more than two times by BBC4, which is not seen in India, apart from some other countries have screened the film on International Women’s Day.

March 24, 2015
Supreme Court scraps ‘draconian’ Section 66A of IT Act

MUMBAI: In a landmark judgement the Indian Supreme Court today scrapped the ‘draconian’ Section 66A of the IT Act, which provides the power to arrest a person for posting allegedly offensive content online.

The court ruled that the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional.

The move comes in the wake of multiple arrests that have been made over the last year of citizens for posting their personal views on social media websites like Facebook and Twitter. The latest was the arrest of a teenager from Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh last week. The Class 12 student was arrested and sent to jail for a Facebook post about senior Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan.

The order was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on petitions filed by civil rights groups and a law student, who argued that Section 66A violated people’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. In the judgment, the Supreme Court said, “There is a difference between discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion and advocacy, no matter how annoying, is allowed.”

The Supreme Court’s move has been lauded by members of the film and media fraternity online, who took to Twitter to express their views on the verdict.

Journalist turned filmmaker Pritish Nandy tweeted, “Section 66A of the IT Act, the noxious, draconian law has been struck down by the Supreme Court. Restores our faith in democracy. What an achievement! @karunanundy #66A, the black act goes.”

Director Madhur Bhandarkar said, “Landmark judgement by Hon Supreme Court as it strikes down Sec 66A of IT Act. Freedom of thought & expression rightly upheld in a democracy.”

Filmmaker Shekhar Kapur added, “As Supreme Court has quashed #Sec66A, its time for every1 to realise growing power of #socialmedia… a powerful tool 2 be used responsibly.”

Actress Suchitra Krishnamurty tweeted, “Yippee #Sec66A has been scrapped. So our freedom of speech is back. Can we have a law to scrap/challenge bans imposed by Govt too?”

Journalist Sagarika Ghosh expressed her views by tweeting this, “Now that #Sec66A gone, in same spirit will GOI apologise to Priya Pillai, allow Wendy Doniger, un-ban books, stop calling media anti-national?”

India Today consulting editor Rajdeep Sardesai tweeted, “The only exception to free speech must remain hate speech and incitement to violence. Defamation/slander as per common law. #Sec66A”

March 24, 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
Supreme Court to hear Cricket World Cup live telecasts appeal in July

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed that the special leave petition to appeal by Prasar Bharati against the order of the Delhi High Court with regard to World Cup Cricket telecasts will come up for hearing on a Tuesday in July “in view of the importance of the matter.”

According to the order of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Prafulla C Pant, which became available today, the Court 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 judges also said, “It is our considered view that at this stage we ought not to consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties on the merits of the controversy as the same may have the effect of prejudicing either of the parties.”

However, the Court 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.

“Though an offer has been made on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Star India) to make available its expertise and personnel to aid Prasar Bharati, we are not inclined to consider the said offer made on behalf of the respondent. The first suggestion put forward therefore does not merit acceptance,” the Court said.

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 Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) 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.’

Meanwhile, the judges said the parties may exchange pleadings, if required.

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

On the suggestion by Star Sports that DD should run a separate channel without the signals of the World Cup for cable operators or run a scroll that the World Cup telecasts are not meant for cable operators, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had pointed out that DD had 1400 transmitters all over the country of which most were unmanned and it was technically not feasible for DD to run a separate channel.

The Delhi High Court had declined to set aside the must carry clause as well as the Act of 2007 in its judgment.

SUPREME COURT ORDER IS ATTACHED BELOW

February 21, 2015
DD to continue showing World Cup 2015 matches: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: Disposing off the application by Star Sports seeking vacation of an interim stay ordered earlier, the Supreme Court today ruled that Doordarshan will continue to show the World Cup 2015 cricket matches and share the feed with cable operators.

The apex Court had on 10 February stayed a judgment of the Delhi High Court of 4 February, which had said that Prasar Bharati cannot share its signals with cable operators.

The Supreme Court directive came on an appeal by Prasar Bharati, which had taken the plea that the law was clear as far as the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007 and the must carry clause were concerned. Even the High Court had refused to strike down the Act or the must carry clause.

The order today is by way of disposing the application by Star Sports seeking a vacation of the stay order. However, the matter will now come up for hearing in due course for detailed arguments. It is learnt from legal sources that the case may come up for further arguments in June.

In an additional affidavit filed at the instance of the apex court, Star Sports had 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 Act, the rights holder gets 75 per cent of the revenue from the telecast on DD. The remaining 25 per cent is retained by DD.)

On the suggestion by Star Sports that DD should run a separate channel without the signals of the World Cup for cable operators or run a scroll that the World Cup telecasts are not meant for cable operators, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had yesterday pointed out that DD had 1400 transmitters all over the country and it was technically not feasible for DD to run a separate channel. Rohatgi told the court that it was mandatory for a private channel under the Sports Act and the Cable TV Network Act to share the feeds of matches of “national importance” with Prasar Bharati for providing it on DD’s free-to-air terrestrial channels.

The apex court had on 17 February asked the pubcaster to give its response on the possibility of launching a separate channel. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose extended the interim order allowing Doordarshan to telecast the matches.

Senior advocate P. Chidambaram on behalf of ESPN and Star Sports said Prasar Bharati could create a mirror image of the World Cup telecast, which does not go to cable operators.

Star Sports said its experts could help Prasar Bharati in creation of a channel that only carried entertainment programmes minus the World Cup telecasts.

In its judgment, the High Court had refused to strike down the must carry clause of 2000 under which cable operators have to carry signals of Doordarshan, and also the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007.

A bench of Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the order on the plea of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), ESPN and Star who had contended that cable TV operators were getting live feeds through DD channels free of cost, resulting in loss of revenue for them.

In the order, the Court had said: “The appeal as well as writ petition (civil) 8458/2007 are allowed to the extent that the live broadcasting signal shared by ESPN/STAR by virtue of the Sports Act with Prasar Bharati, shall not be carried in the designated Doordarshan channels under the must carry obligation cast by the Cable TV Network Act on cable operators. This shall operate prospectively.”

In its directive, the Court had observed that while the advertisement revenue received by DD in respect of the shared content of the sports channels was to be shared in the ratio of not less than 75:25, “it still does not cater to the loss of subscription revenue” by ESPN and Star.

BCCI, Nimbus Communications Ltd and the two sports channels (ESPN and Star) had challenged the high court’s single judge November 2007 order rejecting their pleas that no cable television network, Direct-to-Home (DTH) Network, multi-system network or local cable operator could broadcast such sports events without a licence from the content owners.

February 20, 2015
SC adjourns Doordarshan’s telecast of WC 2015 case to 19 Feb

NEW DELHI: Prasar Bharati was asked today by the Supreme Court to examine the feasibility of starting a new Doordarshan channel exclusively to telecast 2015 World Cup cricket matches without the compulsion of the must-carry clause.

The bench sought this view on a suggestion made by Star and ESPN who had won a case in Delhi High Court to the effect that Doordarshan should not share the World Cup Cricket telecasts with cable operators.

During the hearing of the appeal by Prasar Bharati which was adjourned to 19 February, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose asked Prasar Bharati to examine the technical feasibility and otherwise of starting a new channel, subscription of which could be regulated for the cable operators.

The Court meanwhile extended the interim order allowing DD to telecast all matches till the next hearing.

The bench also asked Star, ESPN and the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) to give an estimate of losses they were likely to suffer in case DD was permitted to beam matches after sharing live feeds with cable operators.

During the hearing, the bench observed that it wanted people to enjoy cricket matches without any hurdles and that the revenue dispute should be resolved amicably between the parties.

The Court also accepted an intervention by multi-system operator Home Cable through Vikki Choudhary and asked him to file an additional affidavit on the formula suggested by ESPN and Star Sports.

While admitting the case last week, the Apex Court had said in its interim order: “This arrangement of DD showing free feed has been there for the last seven years. Let it continue.”

In its judgment, the High Court had refused to strike down the must carry clause of 2000 under which cable operators have to carry signals of Doordarshan, and also the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act 2007.

A bench of Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the order on the plea of BCCI, ESPN and Star who had contended that cable TV operators were getting live feeds through DD channels free of cost, resulting in loss of revenue for them.

February 17, 2015
N Srinivasan can’t contest BCCI 2015 polls: Supreme Court

MUMBAI: After a prolonged period of waiting, the Supreme Court has finally pronounced its verdict on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president N Srinivasan’s conflict of interest case. Amongst other things, the court said that Srinivasan cannot contest the BCCI polls till he gives up commercial interest in the Indian Premiere League (IPL) franchise – Chennai Super Kings (CSK).

A bench of Justices including TS Thakur and FMI Kalifulla, which heard the counsel for BCCI and Srinivasan on one side and rival Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) on the other, had on 17 December reserved its verdict on Srinivasan’s re-election plea but had indicated that the judgment could formulate accountability standards for ill-managed sports bodies to eliminate nepotism and conflict of interest.

The key points of the 130 page judgment read by the Supreme Court includes:

* N Srinivasan or any administrator having commercial interest in cricket cannot contest for BCCI till they have those interests.

* Supreme Court sets up three-member panel headed by ex-CJI R M Lodha to decide quantum of punishment against Meiyappan and Kundra

* BCCI did not adhere to prescribed procedures while conducting probe in IPL spot-fixing and betting scandal

* Charges of cover-up against BCCI president-in-exile N Srinivasan not proved

* Amendment in BCCI rules allowing Srinivasan to own IPL team, is bad

* The highest Court of the country said conflict of interest in cricket leads to great confusion

* SC framed seven questions on which it has passed its verdict

* Rajasthan Royals owner Raj Kundra and Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan’s role in betting stands proved

The panel of judges also asked BCCI to hold fresh elections within six weeks. An independent panel would decide the fate of multimillionaire franchises Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals.

January 22, 2015