ITV

Tag: Aftab Alam

  • Six broadcasters, content aggregators directed to provide signals to AP MSO

    Six broadcasters, content aggregators directed to provide signals to AP MSO

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Arbitration Tribunal (TDSAT), on 22 April, directed six broadcasters and content aggregators to enter into agreements with the Andhra Pradesh based multi-system operator Wiretel Digital Networks.

     

    In the judgement pronounced on Tuesday, the TDSAT bench comprising chairman Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh said the agreements will be based on reference interconnect offer.

     

     The broadcasters/aggregators are ESPN, MediaPro, MSM Discovery, Sun, Ma TV and ETV.

     

     The petitioner, who holds a digital addressable system licence, had approached TDSAT in February 2013 after the respondents delayed/refused to provide signals to it on DAS mode.

     

     The bench for the first time also interpreted the DAS Regulations with regard to mandatory provisioning of signals on DAS mode – ‘the must provide’ obligation.

  • IndiaCast vs DishTV: The final TDSAT order says it all

    IndiaCast vs DishTV: The final TDSAT order says it all

    MUMBAI: Last week, there was a lot of brouhaha about the IndiaCast vs DishTV round of fisticuffs on the DTH operator’s “on request channel service” and the former’s flurry of ads in newspapers and on TV. Both sides claimed victory, saying the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) had ruled in their favour. But there was no order in sight.

     

    Today the TDSAT posted it on its web site, with he verdict pronounced by its chairman Aftab Alam. And here are the highlights: 

     

     

    * The tribunal says that a legal objection cannot be taken to Dish TV’s arrangement of ‘on request channels’ which its counsel said would imply that from1 January 2014, 22 IndiaCast channels will be available only as a-la-carte out of its package. The deal with the other 16 channels shall come to an end on 31 March and from 1 April, they would also be treated similarly.

     

    * The Dish TV counsel also clarified that the scroll running on IndiaCast channels shall from now on only say that those channels will be available on a-la-carte basis and people shall be asked to communicate through the SMS number mentioned on it in case they want to subscribe to any of them.

     

    * IndiaCast counsel was requested to give an undertaking to the court that the ads published by its client against Dish TV shall stop. 

     

    And with these statements, the TDSAT disposed off both the petitions. 

     

    Who really won? It looks like each got its way, in some way, and the tribunal told them to cease firing.  But is it the last that we have seen of them bashing each other? Will they come together on the table and negotiate a deal? 

     

    After all, the seven million subs of Dish TV are not to be sniffed away. And the absence of channels such as Colors on Dish TV pack can lead to customer attrition. History has shown that very few Indian customers go for a-la-carte channels. This will continue to be the case unless customers miraculously have a change in their consumption habits. Both IndiaCast and Dish TV might hold out for a while but we at indiantelevision.com  are betting on the duo reaching a settlement – sooner, than later. 

     

    Click here for the full order

  • TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI continues arguments

    TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI continues arguments

    MUMBAI: Continuing to present its side to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) put forth its arguments to the bench consisting of Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh.

    It started off continuing on yesterday’s argument trail saying that the law does not state that if the laying requirements are not fulfilled then it becomes void. That is, TRAI cannot execute its regulation on channels. That broadcasters are covered by both the Cable TV Networks Act and the TRAI act is a parliamentary mandate and there is nothing illegal in what it is doing. There are several precedents where a subject matter could be covered by more than one statute,  TRAI counsel  Rakesh Dwivedi stated.

    TRAI also claimed that it has a clear parliamentary mandate exercised through the central government to regulate advertisements. It contested the broadcasters’ arguments that TRAI has just a recommendatory role, by highlighting that it has an additional function under section 11 (1) (a) of the TRAI  Act and that does not mean its plenary functions under section (11) (1) (b) are taken away. Therefore, apart from its recommendatory function under (a), its powers also remain under (b). Both the sub clauses complement each other and there is no clash, the counsel stated.

    Reiterating that it has the authority, it said that what it is aiming to do is in perfect accordance with the powers the ministry and it has under section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Act. Likewise, the counsel, said it is not as if the government is seeking to have a higher allowance for advertising air time and is in disagreement with the limit of 12 minutes that the TRAI is seeking to impose.

    To support its argument, the counsel also read out various preceding judgments. According to the TRAI, broadcasters are licensees under the Telegraph Act and so the regulator has full power to ensure compliance within the licence term.
    Singh asked if TRAI can direct Google on the duration and number of ads it can run. To this, the TRAI counsel replied by saying: ‘I am the regulator and I will decide who, when and how much to regulate.

    Coming to the point raised yesterday about a statement TRAI had made in 2004 that “there should not be any regulation at present on advertisement on both FTA and Pay channels” it said that much water had flown under the bridge since it made its statement and the situation was different today. So, it can deem it appropriate to regulate since an expert opinion at one point of time does not mean that it will stay forever, the counsel stated.

  • Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    NEW DELHI: The case challenging the adcap regulations sought to be implemented on television channels was today adjourned to 11 November by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also rejected the interventions filed by Zee, Star and Viacom18, with the Tribunal asking them to file separate applications.

    The News Broadcasters Association had moved TDSAT challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India enforcing the ad cap.

    Several other broadcasters – mostly general entertainment channels – had later moved TDSAT, but the Tribunal had in 30 August accepted the argument by NBA that the cases of the general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with the petition of NBA.

     The news channels are seeking relief from the 10+2 ad cap regulation prescribed by TRAI.

    Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the NBA sought time as the pleadings were not ready.

    Some regional channels from Kerala also wanted to intervene as petitioners, but TDSAT said their matter would be heard after the main hearing.

    Channels that sought to move to the court today included 9X, B4U, TV Vision and Pioneer Channel Factory of Mumbai, Sun TV Network of Chennai, E24 Glamour, Polimer Media, Reliance Big Network, Eenadu TV, Sarthak Entertainment and Raj TV.

    Later, some general entertainment channels including music channels had also approached TDSAT in various petitions and the Tribunal had decided to hear these matters after the NBA matter.

    Counsel for TRAI said that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once for all.

    Meanwhile, TRAI had been forbidden on 30 August from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels who are not abiding by the agreement relating to advertisement time on news channels.

    The Tribunal also said that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator as being done at present and will only submit these to TDSAT at the hearing of the case.

    Counsel for the NBA A J Bhambani had said on 30 August that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the Regulations. He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision. He had added that there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May this year, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

    Even otherwise, he argued that TRAI was only empowered by its own Act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

    When the law was invoked by the Authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before the Tribunal.

  • TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters move Delhi High Court

    TRAI ad cap: Broadcasters move Delhi High Court

    MUMBAI: The 12 minute ad cap case has had a change in venue – from the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to the Delhi High Court (HC). With the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that TDSAT does not have authority to hear cases challenging the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulations, broadcasters had filed a writ petition in the HC last Friday.

    The case is set to be heard on 17 December in the Delhi HC by Justice Manmohan. The appellants include the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), 9X Media, B4U, TV Vision, Sun TV, E24 and Pioneer Channel. The hearing for the case is set to begin afresh but the priority of the lawyers representing the broadcasters will be to get a stay order from the HC to disallow the TRAI from taking any coercive action against channels which are reportedly not following the 12 minute ad cap. Under the TRAI mandate, it can persecute channels who do not toe the line that it has set.

    “We will ask for a stay order on TRAI taking any punitive actions against broadcasters. Since the TDSAT had given a stay order earlier and the bench was headed by a SC judge Justice Aftab Alam, we hope we get it from the HC too,” says a senior executive.

    The case will by and large remain the same with the focus on the fact that the ad cap is not a regulation at all. However, since it is now the HC, the crux of the arguments will be on constitutional grounds such as Article 14 and Article 19 that talks about the right to equality and freedom of speech respectively.

    The channels will now have to go through the long drawn process of the hearing proceeding in the HC and getting the stay order against the regulator taking them to the cleaners for violation of the ad cao reglation. They have been fortunate not to have got the stick so far from the TRAI which could have prosecuted them as it was within its rights to do so.

  • TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI almost done with its arguments

    TDSAT & Ad cap: TRAI almost done with its arguments

    MUMBAI: The third day of the arguments presented by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) saw several crucial points being touched upon and the TDSAT also noting down points that could be pondered upon for rumination.

    The TRAI counsel Rakesh Dwivedi pointed out that if one reads section 7 (11) of the Cable TV Networks (CTN) Act then it must be read with the ad cap regulation because the regulator was using it only to enforce this section.

    Section 7 (11) states that the authority has the power to ‘seize equipment used for operating the cable television network if it is found to be breaching its other sections’.

    According to the TRAI, programmes and advertisements are different and the regulator is trying to prevent intermixing of these two and ensuring an increase in quality of service.

    The regulator also gave its version regarding Article 19 (a) of the Constitution saying that airwaves and frequencies are a public property of the government and so there is no fundamental right that can apply to it. Electronic media and press are different and cannot be treated equally. Broadcasters are companies and not citizens so fundamental rights don’t apply to them, Dwivedi argued.

    The point about misuse of clock hour was once again raised by Justice Aftab Alam to which the TRAI reverted by saying that the clock hour regulation instituted by the TRAI and the CTN Act are the same thing and they cannot be interpreted in any other way. Broadcasters are thinking of a bankable hour, that can be carried over within 24 hours but the TRAI says that a clock hour is fixed.

    The bench questioned the TRAI that if it could have enforced the ad cap law under the CTN Act then it need not have made a separate regulation or a direction or use the TRAI act for it.

    To this, counsel said that the CTN Act only applies to cable operators at this stage. And just because they have two powers that are coinciding they cannot take away one power. The point where broadcasters come into the picture of this Act, is for the advertising and programming code, which they have to adhere to by virtue of them having to apply for an uplinking and downlinking licence.

    The TRAI counsel also requested that merely because it had framed a regulation or passed a direction the bench may not nullify it because it has passed it under the TRAI act and not the CTN act, although it has powers under both. He also requested that if the bench were to find anything wrong with the ad cap regulation, they may modify it. However, Alam said that it cannot be done since it was a delegated regulation. To this TRAI asked the bench to consider it as a direction and then modify it keeping in mind the best interest of the viewers.

    One of the arguments, that the counsel raised, relates to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that speaks about the fundamental right to equality. He stated that it would be in fair spirit if cable operators and broadcasters are not equated with each other at this juncture. The TRAI counsel presented data which clearly showed that broadcasters were airing TV commercials for an unbearable duration every day in between programmes and hence it had decided to apply the ad cap to them first. The limits on TV commercial time will be imposed on cable operators later by the TRAI, the counsel revealed. And the fact that cable ops will be made to comply later does not mean that broadcasters should be excluded from the ad cap now.

    The counsel said he would be addressing the issue of clubbing channel genres together on Monday.

    The bench asked the TRAI why it wasn’t willing to wait till digitization was completed to impose the ad cap regulation. The TRAI argued that by September 2014, nearly 50 per cent of the country will be digitized. Hence it was a good enough reason to bring in ad time limits rules now so that TV air time could be slowly modulated over the period. The TRAI counsel agreed the regulation may not be perfect in its current form, but that does not give the TDSAT a reason to strike it down.

    Regarding FTA channels, Dwivedi said that the broadcasters had not given the TRAI any financial or commercials analysis of the minute by minute usage of ad time and data to support that ad revenues will indeed fall when the ad cap comes into effect. Hence, the regulator had made a general reccee of the channels and deduced what needed to be done and only then drawn up the ad cap regulation. It also stated that FTA channels don’t have too many ads so TRAI did not know why they were objecting to it.

    At the end of the proceedings, an important observation was made by the TDSAT that if the ad cap regulation is struck down, no law can be contended except section 7 (11) of the CTN Act, because broadcasters have accepted this act. Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution are against the imposition of the ad cap regulation and then the only thing that remains is the interpretation of the 7 (11) section of the CTN Act.

    The TRAI will continue with its arguments on Monday and the broadcasters are scheduled to speak after that.

  • Day 3 of TDSAT ad cap hearings

    Day 3 of TDSAT ad cap hearings

    MUMBAI: The queue of channels waiting their turn to present their individual cases on the so-called crippling TRAI 12 minute ad cap to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has not really got any shorter even as the hearings got into the third day. The reason: the News Broadcasters Association’s (NBA) lawyers continued with their arguments in the presence of TDSAT’s Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh.  
    And with their presentation referencing statutory laws as relating to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and the TRAI Act 1997 completed they have now progressed to bringing in references about media freedom as written in the Article 19A of the Indian Constitution.
        

    The NBA counsel referred to the ‘Sakal Papers And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961’ case. The Supreme Court had then affirmed that a newspaper should have the liberty to carry as many advertisements as it would want to because ‘curtailment of advertising is a curtailment of free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.  

    The declaration of this case reads: ‘the state could not make a law which directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the commercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.’

    According to the NBA, since such a  ruling exists for print newspapers, it should also apply to the broadcast medium. However, Alam tended to disagree and opined that that the electronic medium is different from print.

    The NBA also contended that broadcasters don’t actually get a ‘license’ from the central government under The Telegraph Act 1885 but rather a ‘registration’ under the uplinking/downlinking policy guidelines. However, the justice  doubted that the broadcasters don’t get a licence, and he also felt that broadcasters don’t come under the cable TV act as the NBA is claiming.

    During the 12 November hearing, the NBA had argued that TRAI had not done the laying requirements as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which it should have in order to carry out enforcement of ad cap and prosecution of erring channels.
    The hearings are slated to continue tomorrow morning with the NBA and its lawyers presenting their arguments.  For the other channels, the wait continues.

    MUMBAI: The queue of channels waiting their turn to present their individual cases on the so-called crippling TRAI 12 minute ad cap to the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has not really got any shorter even as the hearings got into the third day. The reason: the News Broadcasters Association’s (NBA) lawyers continued with their arguments in the presence of TDSAT’s Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh.  
    And with their presentation referencing statutory laws as relating to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and the TRAI Act 1997 completed they have now progressed to bringing in references about media freedom as written in the Article 19A of the Indian Constitution.
        

    The NBA counsel referred to the ‘Sakal Papers And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961’ case. The Supreme Court had then affirmed that a newspaper should have the liberty to carry as many advertisements as it would want to because ‘curtailment of advertising is a curtailment of free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.  

    The declaration of this case reads: ‘the state could not make a law which directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the commercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.’

    According to the NBA, since such a  ruling exists for print newspapers, it should also apply to the broadcast medium. However, Alam tended to disagree and opined that that the electronic medium is different from print.

    The NBA also contended that broadcasters don’t actually get a ‘license’ from the central government under The Telegraph Act 1885 but rather a ‘registration’ under the uplinking/downlinking policy guidelines. However, the justice  doubted that the broadcasters don’t get a licence, and he also felt that broadcasters don’t come under the cable TV act as the NBA is claiming.

    During the 12 November hearing, the NBA had argued that TRAI had not done the laying requirements as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which it should have in order to carry out enforcement of ad cap and prosecution of erring channels.
    The hearings are slated to continue tomorrow morning with the NBA and its lawyers presenting their arguments.  For the other channels, the wait continues.

  • TDSAT: Ad cap saga continues on Day 2

    TDSAT: Ad cap saga continues on Day 2

    MUMBAI: The hearings on TRAI’s proposed 12 minute ad cap regulation by the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) that began yesterday look unlikely to get over in a hurry. For the past two days it is the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) which has been presenting its case to the tribunal. Today, the NBA counsel raised the point that the TRAI had not fulfilled the laying requirements to the parliament as per section 37 of the TRAI Act which says that “the Regulations made by the TRAI have to be placed before the Parliament to seek its approval. Thus, there can be no dispute that the regulations framed by the TRAI have the force of law having been made through the process of subordinate legislation provided they are consistent with the Act and Rules.”

    Any law infringing the fundamental rights of the people needs to be laid before the parliament after which it can be either annulled or amended or approved by the parliament, says a counsel. A senior broadcaster who has been following the case closely says, “If anything is a law then it has to be passed by the legislature.”
        

    Therefore, the NBA said that TRAI is crossing its line by enforcing the ad cap and prosecuting channels that aren’t following it. TDSAT Justice Aftab Alam wanted to know from TRAI if they had laid it before parliament as it’s an issue that should have been dealt in the preliminary stages itself to which TRAI did not have a substantial reply.

    In yesterday’s hearing, one of the points put forth by the NBA counsel was section 2(G) of The Cable Act of 1995 according to which advertisements are a part of content. At this, TDSAT wondered how a broadcaster can come under this act. Counsel for NBA today validated the position under this act by stating that permission for uplinking falls under the Cable Act bringing broadcasters under this Act. It also says that channels adhere to the programme code.

    Since the Cable Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Information and Broadcasting (I & B) ministry, broadcasters fall under the purview of the I & B ministry and not TRAI.

    NBA also contended yesterday that TRAI does not have the authority to regulate content and its powers are restricted only to licensing and quality of service while content regulation falls under the ambit of the I & B ministry. Neither the TRAI Act nor the Indian Telegraph Act, under which TRAI works, gives the regulator the powers to deal with content.

    The case will continue tomorrow post noon when NBA will put forth more points in front of the TDSAT.

  • Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    Ad cap petitions adjourned till 11 November

    NEW DELHI: The case challenging the adcap regulations sought to be implemented on television channels was today adjourned to 11 November by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

     

    TDSAT Chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh also rejected the interventions filed by Zee, Star and Viacom18, with the Tribunal asking them to file separate applications.

     

    The News Broadcasters Association had moved TDSAT challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India enforcing the ad cap.

     

    Several other broadcasters – mostly general entertainment channels – had later moved TDSAT, but the Tribunal had in 30 August accepted the argument by NBA that the cases of the general entertainment channels could not be clubbed with the petition of NBA.

     

     The news channels are seeking relief from the 10+2 ad cap regulation prescribed by TRAI.

     

    Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the NBA sought time as the pleadings were not ready.

     

    Some regional channels from Kerala also wanted to intervene as petitioners, but TDSAT said their matter would be heard after the main hearing.

     

    Channels that sought to move to the court today included 9X, B4U, TV Vision and Pioneer Channel Factory of Mumbai, Sun TV Network of Chennai, E24 Glamour, Polimer Media, Reliance Big Network, Eenadu TV, Sarthak Entertainment and Raj TV.

     

    Later, some general entertainment channels including music channels had also approached TDSAT in various petitions and the Tribunal had decided to hear these matters after the NBA matter.

     

    Counsel for TRAI said that an anomalous situation had been created with some channels having accepted the adcap with effect from 1 October. It was therefore requested that the matter be resolved once for all.

     

    Meanwhile, TRAI had been forbidden on 30 August from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels who are not abiding by the agreement relating to advertisement time on news channels.

     

    The Tribunal also said that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator as being done at present and will only submit these to TDSAT at the hearing of the case.

     

    Counsel for the NBA A J Bhambani had said on 30 August that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the Regulations. He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision. He had added that there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May this year, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

     

    Even otherwise, he argued that TRAI was only empowered by its own Act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

     

    When the law was invoked by the Authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before the Tribunal.

  • TDSAT stays TRAIs action against ad cap

    TDSAT stays TRAIs action against ad cap

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has been left toothless by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). In an order passed today, the regulator has been forbidden from taking any ‘coercive action’ against news channels for not abiding by the agreement relating to ad cap.

    The petition filed by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) challenges the constitutional validity of the regulations of TRAI enforcing the ad cap. The petition has been listed for a hearing on 11 November and will be presided by TDSAT chairman Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldip Singh.

    The tribunal added that while the news channels will maintain weekly records of the advertising time per hour on a weekly basis, they will not be required to submit this to the regulator. Unlike the current practice, the records will only be submitted to TDSAT at the time of the hearing of the case.

    Counsel A J Bhambani for the NBA said that a delegation of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had submitted a formula to the regulator but that did not preclude the broadcasters from challenging the validity of the regulations.

    He also said that this was only a compromise reached between the broadcasters and the regulator and could not form the basis of penal action since it was not a regulation or legal provision.

    Speaking after TRAI Counsel Saket Singh had presented his arguments, Bhambani said there were many members who were common to both the IBF and the NBA, and therefore the IBF had submitted a ‘proposal’ on 29 May 2013, which the TRAI accepted. But this could not be construed as a regulation.

    But TRAI had begun prosecutions on the basis of this proposal and not on the basis of any law, he stressed.  He said that TRAI had in fact submitted on 11 June before TDSAT that no action would be taken.

    Even otherwise, he said that TRAI was only empowered by its own act to make ‘recommendations’ on issues like advertisements and not bring about or enforce regulations and resort to prosecution.

    When Singh sought to interrupt to say that 20 of the 24 members of NBA were following the formula, Bhambani pointed out that one news channel had recently been forced to retrench a large number of staff.

    Earlier, Singh stressed that the proposal submitted by IBF had been worked out by a group that had the NBA president as one of its members.

    He also stressed that action had been taken only against those broadcasters who had violated the agreed formula more than 20 times.

    He said the proposal had made it clear that with effect from 29 May, the ad time per hour would not be more than 30 minutes. From 1 July, this would be reduced to 20 minutes per hour while GECs will cut this down to 16 minutes. This will be in force until 30 September, following which the 12-minute rule will be enforced from 1 October. TRAI had agreed as it felt this was the best way forward, Singh added.

    However, Justice Alam said that the proposal could be treated as a law and acted upon for prosecution of television channels. Furthermore, it could not preclude the channels from challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations.

    Referring to a point made by Singh, Justice Alam also said it would be unfair to ask for commitments from the channels when they were challenging the validity of the law and TRAI’s status quo in the matter. “This is arm-twisting,” he observed.

    When Singh sought to stress that the channels were violating their own agreement, Justice Alam said “We feel we will test the constitutional validity of your order.”

    He added that TDSAT felt that before taking any action against the channels, TRAI would have either informed the tribunal or at least given a warning to the channels.

    Referring to Singh stressing that the GECs were abiding by the agreement, Justice Alam said there was need to draw a line between news channels and GECs.

    Singh also proposed that TRAI would withdraw the complaints if the channels gave an undertaking before the tribunal about adherence.

    Meanwhile, in its order yesterday on a mention by the NBA counsel, TDSAT said, “Even while the appeals are pending, 14 complaints have been filed by the TRAI against different broadcasters for violation of the standards of quality service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 that came into force on 22 March 2013.”

    TDSAT further noted that Singh had admitted that “Not only the complaints have been filed but as a matter of fact, cognizance was taken in those complaints at 2 p.m. today.”

    TDSAT had listed the matter for today and observed, “In view of the fact that the validity of the regulation is under consideration before the tribunal and having regard to the manner in which the matter has been proceeding, we are somewhat surprised at the sudden and drastic action taken by the TRAI.”

    “When we expressed our displeasure over the way the matter has been sought to be precipitated, Singh requested that the matter be taken up tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. so that he may get proper instructions in the matter.  We suggest that Singh should get instructions as to whether the TRAI is willing to withdraw the complaints filed during the pendency of the appeals before the tribunal or at least till an interim order is passed on the issue after hearing both sides.”

    When the law was invoked by the authority in May 2012, it was disputed by television broadcasters which had also challenged the jurisdiction of TRAI in this regard before TDSAT.

    With the news channels having obtained a stay from the TDSAT against any coercive action by TRAI, it remains to be seen how the IBF representing GECs will react and whether it will move TDSAT or any other court for similar stay.